Jump to content

Talk:English language in England/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Lincolnshire

The article says that the South of Lincolnshire is closer in pronunciation to "Standard English" than the North. I also implies that pronouncing bath words with /æ/ is non-standard (despite being the etymological pronunciation and the one used by the great majority of native speakers of English).

This is not the way the term "Standard English" is used in mainstream liguistic discussion. There is not such a thing as standard English pronunciation, only a standard language at the word-by-word level. What the editor probably meant is Received Pronunciation. Can someone who can edit this page please change this?

Wouldsort (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

British English?

There are English English dialects in which the final "r" is pronounced. --Pauldanon 12:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is this not included in British English? RickK 22:30, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Because British English is about all the varieties of English as written and spoken in Great Britain; this article is specifically about spoken accents in England (not Scotland or Wales). --Angr/comhrá 14:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
However, the vast majority of articles point to British English. English English isn't even mentioned in the List of dialects of the English language list though British English is. Moreover, the assertion that "British English is about all the varieties of English as written and spoken in Great Britain" is questionable. I would be willing to bet that most people using the term "British English" are not thinking of Scottish English, Hiberno-English, or even Welsh English —Nefertum17 05:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
That's likely because "British English" doesn't refer to various flavors of "British Isles English". Rather, it is something more akin to "British Empire English"—the language spoken by British officials and businesspeople when working abroad, for example. The way the rest of the world got to understand "British English"—an outside-looking-in view. As such, it has a notable military and bureaucratese flavor as well. Remember, too, that worldwide television broadcasts are a very recent invention; that was the primary way in which the world got to identify a particular type of speaking and writing as "British English", by this usage. Gene Nygaard 08:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Selected Languages and Accents Map

Inaccurate, misleading, incomplete...

I can think of at least seven accents in the "Southern Irish" area. This map is obviously created by an English person with no understanding of other accents in the isles. Scottish Gaelic and Irish Gaeilge are mutually unintelligible. Northern Irish is spoken in the Republic of Ireland.

Estuary English pervades more of England than is shown.

"Scottish" is vague and has regional variants.

"Norfolk/Suffolk/Essex" is not correct. As Essex is split in two by accent and the East Anglian accent is spoken in Cambs, Herts, Beds and is no different from the accent spoken in Northants, Oxon, Worcs and so on.

The map is better off deleted, as it will only create confusion for people not from the UK and Ireland who know better than what this map tries to purport. --Jm butler 10:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It certainly could be improved. I think it'd be a better idea to have separate maps, and let the users of regional pages go into the details. For the England one, I'd suggest a broad colour-coding (north vs south) treating southern England, outside greater London, as a basic southern rural accent with regional variants (West Country, East Anglia) noted. Estuary, as you say, has a huge spread, particularly westward to Slough and Swindon, as well as a general association with urban areas right across the south. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll try to sketch something out. RayGirvan 17:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I think that the most alarming thing about the map is that "Geordie" is pointing at Middlesbrough! That really does need altering very soon. The two do not sound alike at all. I think that some might resent the definitions of "Yorkshire" and "Lancashire", although I can see some point in it. It would be nice if it was a bit clearer. I think that area where Yorkshire and Lancashire are said to overlap is Wakefield and Barnsley, which are known for their distincive accent ["Kes"]. Speaking of "Kes", I put it down in the references a while back and it is now gone. Why? That is one of the most famous examples of dialect in culture.
It's still there on the Yorkshire dialect and accent page. Feel free to put it back here too.--JHJ 1 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)
This map is pretty awful if you'll forgive me for saying so. As a Scotsman, I can tell the difference between more than seven Scottish accents/dialects (North East, North Eastern Lowlands, South Eastern Lowlands, Western Lowlands, Central Lowlands, Highlands, Caithness/Orkney/Shetland as well as Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen all having distinct urban accents/dialects), obviously a non-Scotsman might not be able to define quite as many which i understand, but the map should at least hint at some kind of East/West or North/South divide across Scotland. Perhaps the "Glasgow" and "Edinburgh" is supposed to do this although I find this inadequate. I would suggest cutting Scotland, Wales and Ireland from this to provide a more detailed map.
I am from Lancashire, and can define many different accents from the area (Manc, the rhotic accents, Rochdale/Oldham/Bury, North Lanc). It will always be the case that dialects are recognizable to the trained ear from one small place to the next (eg counties, even towns). We have to presume that the articles are written for those not "in the know", so generalization is needed, otherwise we'd get in a big mess. Boothman 20:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The comment about the North/South split of accents is incorrect - it says the split goes from the Wash to Hereford, and that that reflects the division between Anglo-Saxon England and the Danelaw. The Danelaw split was the other way (a \ not a / ) as it ran from roughly Chester to London. 135.196.62.70 12:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yorkshire

As it's unreferenced I can't check the facts but there are two obvious errors:

"It should be noted that that the three ridings of Yorkshire cover a huge area; vowel sounds and usage are quite different in Hull, Headingley, and Halifax. Also, the divisions into West, South, North, East Yorkshire by the post office has little correlation with accent [e.g. York and Leeds sound more alike than York and Scarborough]."

Headingley and Halifax are both in West Yorkshire, Hull is East Yorkshire. If places names begining with H are wanted I suggest Headingley is replaced by one in North or South Yorkshire.

The division into north/south/east/west is nothing to do with the post office! It's the Ridings and is now reflected by the organisation of local government. 81.187.43.179 06:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

No. The ridings were completely different: the West Riding covered the whole of West and South Yorkshire, parts of what is now Lancashire, Harrogate, Ripon, Goole - about half of Yorkshire! The West/South/North/Humberside thing was for local government 1974-1996, but are now merely for the post office. The county councils for West and South Yorkshire were abolished in 1986. In 1996, Humberside was abolished and a few other reforms took place, which I think are a bit too boring to reproduce here. I'm not sure whether Middlesbrough now counts as Yorkshire again or not, seeing as Cleveland was also abolished.

I think that the H thing is a toy on the old toast "God save us from Hell, Hull and Halifax." I suggest Hemsworth to be added instead of Headingley, as a representative of the pits.

Broad A

What's the source for the claim that Brummie uses a broad A in cast etc.? In my experience it doesn't, at least in most of the words in question. --JHJ 20:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I think the evidence is that it's variable; see the links at the foot of the Brummie page to English Accents and Dialects annotated samples. RayGirvan 03:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK. It seemed better to use the link to the Brummie page than to duplicate the information here.--JHJ 17:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Northern England and the Midlands

I think these sections could do with a check of sources (such as Wells's book, mentioned in the references) and much more use of IPA rather than respellings (which often don't work very well: what sounds does "Lestoh" actually indicate?). I've tried to improve a few sections, but I think it needs a lot more.--JHJ 21:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The Middlesbrough section describes the nurse vowel as "/E:/", which isn't even an IPA symbol. I have no idea what sound they're trying to represent. --ABehrens (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Some problems with this article

First of all, could someone find a better example of a Yorkshire accent than Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I mean they're comedy northerners. I would delete it by I can't think of any replacements off the top of my head, but there must be loads.

Agreed, I've deleted it.--JHJ 1 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Secondly, I don't thin "wigga" is actually a British term. I've never heard it used in a British context, only an American one.

I don't know about this. If no-one comes up with a source for its use in a British context in the next few days, then go ahead and delete that bit.--JHJ 1 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Also, this article is well written but it seems a bit too academic to me;

random example "The diphthong /aɪ/ (as in price) realised as [ʌɪ] or [ɔɪ], sounding more like the diphthong in Received Pronunciation choice."

I'm not sure what your problem is here. You've got phonetic transcriptions for those who can read them and a comparison with a "reference" vowel for those who can't. Can you elaborate? --JHJ 1 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Or "In traditional West Country accents, the voiceless fricatives /s,f,θ,ʃ/ are often voiced to [z,v,ð,ʒ]".

Come again? If I wasn't British I wouldn't understand a word of this. What is a fricative? Can't this article be made a bit more intelligible to the average reader? JW 30 June 2005 21:50 (UTC)

I've expanded this a bit, and provided a link to a page which defines "fricative".--JHJ 1 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Just a thought but isn't Cockney Rhyming slang also refered to as English English? = JVG 14:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Soaps comment

The soap "Emmerdale" is set in Yorkshire, yet almost all of the actors have Lancashire accents. "Coronation Street" is set in Lancashire, yet the actors mostly speak with Yorkshire accents.

Really? I watch Coronation Street and I am from Yorkshire living in Lancashire. I simply don't believe this. Can anyone give me a specific example? Can I find out who else wants this comment deleting?

-- OwlofDoom 09:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Both soaps use actors from either side of the divide. Whoever made the opening comment is obviously from darn sarf.

Unless there's a reasonably reliable source for it, I'd favour deleting it.--JHJ 20:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Cure, sure, pure

Someone recently added the following: A long vowel sound is usually broken down into two separate vowels. This is most common in the words "cure", "pure" and "sure". Whilst younger Northerners may only use this for those three words, the older generations will perform this for almost any long vowel.

Now I think I know what this is referring to, a tendency to pronounce words with the RP diphthong /ʊə/ with a sequence [uːə] so that sure can sound like "shoo-er" (although the paragraph doesn't make this clear), but as it stands it needs serious improvement. What is meant by "almost any long vowel"? I don't believe that this happens to long vowels such as the one in start. Is there any source for the claim, particularly the suggestion of an age difference? I haven't deleted the paragraph yet, but I will if it doesn't get improved.--JHJ 20:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

No improvement was forthcoming, so it's gone.--JHJ 16:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"Considered offensive"

Another dubious addition: To many natives of England the term English English is considered offensive with its implication that the English speak a variant of their own language. In the absence of any source for this claim, I'm going to delete it.--JHJ 16:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Some people in England do find the phrase odd. Personally I think "England's English" or "English of England" is preferable. But they sound odd too! --MacRusgail 11:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I find it offensive and I know other people do too. The official language is simply "English". The term is illogical (describing something with the same adjective twice is simply not done) and outside linguistic academia, I think you'd get a lot of blank stares if you started talking about "English English". This article needs to be quite clear in showing this term is only used by/for linguists as it is being referred to by people debating other topics. I've put it back in and made it slightly less assertive. Wiki-Ed 17:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
That you find it offensive isn't really evidence that this is a widespread view, and its appearance in the first paragraph detracts from the point of the article, which is to describe (and provide links to other articles describing) the varieties of the English language spoken in England. I agree that the term is a bit odd (though it is the natural parallel to American English, Scottish English, New Zealand English etc.) and isn't very widely used, but I don't see why anybody would take offence. If you don't like the term, then it might be a better idea to suggest a change in the name of this page.--JHJ 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
In conversation, I've usually used the phrase Native English to avoid ambiguity.
- Astatine 13:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't change it - it would appear to be what linguists call English spoken in England (presumably for want of a better term). However, lay people would not comprehend it and if you were to explain I suspect it would be considered nonsense. I am not about to commission a Mori poll to ascertain whether or not this is true - I'd rather put my money into sending linguists on history courses - but I think I can safely assume that I am not in a minority of one. Unfortunately without sources it just makes me look like I am putting forward some kind of English nationalist POV... :(

Personally I think the first paragraph of an article should be an introduction to the topic, and where you are using a bit of potentially contentious terminology it as well to put a disclaimer in explaining how/where/when the term is used. In this case it would prevent casual readers from mistakenly thinking this is some kind of new mainstream name for -English- where it is in fact a niche academic term. Wiki-Ed 19:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I find this article epitomizes the huge US bias in the English Wikipeida. Why should such a nonsense phrase as 'English English' be used to describe the English language as spoken by The English? Why should the language I was taught by my English parents in my English home and later in English lessons in my English school have to be have such a ridiculous title? Where are the articles on Irish Irish, French French, German German etc? Markb 13:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with MarkB, this does once again show up the huge Americentric nature of Wikipedia. Boothman 19:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm American, so my opinion will probably strike some people as biased . . . but I don't see that there's any America-centrism at work here. There are so many varieties of English, spoken in so many places on the globe, that it is sometimes useful to specify that you're talking about English as spoken in England, as opposed to the way it's spoken in New Zealand, or South Africa, or Canada, or Australia, or India, or even the United States.
Nobody talks about "Irish Irish" because there never was an Irish Empire, and consequently the Irish language has not been spread throughout the world as English was. But I have encountered the term "French French", used to indicate French as it is spoken in France, and not the way it's spoken in Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, Haiti, and other places. There probably are similar terms for German (which has sizable native-speaker communities in Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Liechtenstein) and for Spanish (the native language of far more people outside of Spain than in it). The same goes for Portuguese; it's sometimes necessary to distinguish between the Brazilian variety of the language and the one spoken in Portugal. You can expect to see similar terminology applied to the language of any country that had a colonial empire in recent centuries.
One could certainly argue that "English as spoken in England" should be the default meaning of "English language". I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. But in some contexts, it's ambiguous to just say "English" and assume that your audience knows what you mean. To be more specific, you'll be forced to "English English" or something like it. No disrespect for England or its people is intended when Americans use this sort of terminology; we're just trying to be clear about what we mean.
But I've wandered too far from the original topic of discussion, which was the following statement: To many natives of England the term English English is considered offensive with its implication that the English speak a variant of their own language. If many natives of England really do feel that way, then it's perfectly valid to document that feeling in an article titled "English English". So the real question is: how widespread is this sentiment? Can anyone provide a non-anecdotal source? Pat Berry 19:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Impossible, since English English only exists on internet sites such as this and a few obscure linguistic papers. Nobody in England will have heard of English English, and when encountering the term would probably say, "What's that!?" I'm sure if you were to conduct a poll in England with the question "What do you think of English English?", 90% of the people would wonder what the hell it was and the rest would consider it a useless and confusing phrase. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 10:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC).
Thus begging the question, how can any native Englanders be offended by something they've never heard of? Apparently only a scant 10% would even be able to pick up on the meaning. By the way, I hope that everyone here is aware that 58% of all statistics are made up on the spot... 138.69.160.1 18:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

One English Language, different usages?

Strange. In general no-one in England says "English English" or "British English" as a rule, just "English". As a child, rightly or wrongly, I learnt that there is one language called "English" in the native tongue but many different "usages". Thus there is American usage, Australian usage, Irish usage, but only one language: "English". At least, this is how the Oxford English Dictionary defined it! "British English" and its derivatives are regarded as an Americanism. Now, native English speakers tend to adopt Americanisms when speaking to people who are familiar with this usage, simply because doing so is expedient as native English speakers are generally familiar with most American, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Indian, South African, Canadian, New Zealand and Australian usages through the media of tv, film, music, the internet, direct contact or through relatives in these countries. Thus you will hear English natives use the term "British English" or "American English" for this reason, or simply because they do not know better and that, in fact, this is simply American usage of English to describe the usage spoken in Britain.

"British English" used by non-English nationals can be construed as slightly offensive by some English people depending on their mood and inclination perhaps because it comes across as something of a slight, since it implies "loss of ownership" of their own tongue, something that native speakers from England might find somewhat preposterous because by definition it is the language of the English nation. I think a lot of English feel the English language "belongs" to them. It's ours! Not in an over-the-top "Rah! Rah! England!" way, but in a reserved matter-of-fact way. If you know what I mean? Insofar as, anything else is absurd. In pub talk I have often heard people comment along the lines of: "No one says 'French French or Spanish Spanish in English because that is ridiculous, almost equally so is 'British English' or 'English English' though 'we know what you mean!'". This is probably because the phrase "English English" sounds tautological and is probably a genuine pleonasm, especially in the context of discussing different English usages. Nonetheless, "we know what you mean" but it sounds contrived, gramatically odd in fact.

Interestingly English spoken as a second language is usually the most difficult "usage" for native English speakers to comprehend because of pronunciation, intonation, inflection, and mixed registers and use of native language grammar. However,once a decent fluency is acheived, foreign accents sound positively exotic and are very pleasant on the ear! IMHO, anyone who take the time and effort to learn a foreign language (and way of thinking, openess to new cultures, views and history) deserves a pat on the back. No doubt my attempts to speak other languages is just as tricky for native speakers to understand despite my best attempts to get it right. So I sympathise totally with all sencond/third language speakers of English! I suppose this is so for all native speakers listening to second or third language speakers :-)

Spelling-wise, I learnt the major reason for different American spelling of the same words was due to the publication of the American Heritage Dictionary which introduced simplified spelling based on pronunciation to help improve literacy in post Civil War America. Fair enough. It does cause gip in spelling tests when the teacher goes off on one about American spellings though! Good for a laugh, innit?!

At the end of the day, we English shouldn't take ourselves so seriously or be too sensitive about the use of the term "English English", there is no harm meant, after all.

Just some observations as an English person. Hope this is helpful!

P.S.: I've added the same comments to the British English discussion.

P.P.S. When I lived in Germany I did hear Germans say "Oestereichish" for "Austrian usage" (listen to ORF or read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_German) and "Schweizer Deutsch" for Swiss German...(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_German). Northern Germans would often comment to me that they found this ussage particularly tricky to understand.., and would take the mickey of the dialect! Note, we would never normally or comfortably say "German German" in English, simply "German" although we might stress what we mean by saying German as spoken in Germany!

DomUK 23:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[ʌɪ] for the "eye" vowel

According to this article, [ʌɪ] is not in Received Pronunciation, but is used in some accents. Does anybody know why the OED (or at least the Concise OED), which uses RP pronunciations, transliterates /aɪ/ as /ʌɪ/? --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 00:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. There's an article by J.C. Wells online, which mentions the new OED transcription, at http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/ipa-english-uni.htm, and he is particularly critical of this choice. I got the symbol [ʌɪ] for East Anglian and rural southern accents from the Collect Britain website, and if I say what I think is [ʌɪ] to myself it seems to be like something out of one of those accents, not RP. (Maybe someone should check and see which symbols are used for those accents in Wells's book, but certainly they have a distinctive realisation of that vowel which should be mentioned on this page.) However, as it's used by a major dictionary, /ʌɪ/ for the price vowel is mentioned on the Received Pronunciation page, and arguably should be mentioned on the IPA for English page.--JHJ 10:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I just see boxes for all the IPA symbols... can you people find some better way of representing them we all can see? --MacRusgail 11:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
See International Phonetic Alphabet#Note: This page uses special characters for help on how to see them.--JHJ 16:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Stigma

I think that the article should mention more about the stigma attached to certain regional accents, and attempts to destroy them through the educational system, as well as the effects of migration and television... --MacRusgail 13:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate map

(The following is a duplicate of comments I made here: Talk:Scottish_English#Inaccurate_map.)

The following map has been applied to this page, and to Scottish English:

Diagram showing the geographical locations of selected languages and dialects of the British Isles.

It appears to have one major flaw, and several quibbles:

  • Where on earth is the Scots language? Its ommission seems particularly inappropriate considering the debt owed to Scots by Scottish English. Somewhat bizarrely, only one dialect of Scots is included, and that is the tiny number of Ulster Scots speakers, only about 2% of all Scots-speakers! I know that the map is titled "Selected languages", but it is baffling why the only language the auther has "selected" not to include is Scots!
  • Why on earth have two distinct languages, Scottish Gaelic language and Irish language, been shown as a homogenous blob?
  • Highland English is missing: another rather stark absence on this Scottish English page.
  • Why are several subdivisions of English English shown, but only two of Scottish English? The differences between the Fife dialect and Aberdonian are just as big, if not bigger, than the differences between Brummie and Yorkshire dialect.
  • Where on earth did Shetland go? A stunning ommission, considering that it is one of the most distictive linguistic groups in the entire British Isles?

I find it very depressing to hear that a German textbook publisher wants to use it in textbooks for 600 schools. No wonder many people grow up with a very strange perception of the language situation in the United Kingdom.--Mais oui! 10:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I have only just noticed: English English is not even shown on the map! Surely by far the most important and powerful language variant in the entire British Isles has been left out!--Mais oui! 10:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The first problem is that "English English" is used with various meanings, and it is one of the most recent additions to the Wikipedia articles on varieties of English, only created 11 months ago.
The second problem you've already pointed out above; this map breaks it down more finely than that, no matter how you define English English.
The third problem is that Trudgill's meaning of "English English" is a neologism; it didn't even exist when this map was made (before Trudgill's birth). It isn't necessarily the generally accepted, and certainly not uniformly accepted, today, either. Gene Nygaard 14:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
This map was not made before Trudgill's birth. The background map of the British Isles is old enough to be in the public domain, but the lines and labeling of dialects was done by Ricjl for Wikipedia. He's already modified it once in response to other users' comments (see [1] for the older version), and if he was asked politely maybe he'd update it again to reflect Mais oui!'s concerns. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Can the spelling of 'Brummy' on the map be standardised with 'Brummie' as used throughout the rest af the article.

Staffordshire

Recently added: In Staffordshire, vowels can vary unexpectedly to the outsider, for example "linen" can be pronounced "len-een" and "biscuit" can be rendered as "bess-keet". Can we have a source for this, please? --JHJ 20:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Staffs article now rewritten. The short i can sound rather like an RP short e in North Staffs and North Shrops, as in milk-melk etc. References: Elmes, S (2005) Talking for Britain: a Journey Through the Nation's Dialects (Chapter 5) - Penguin Books; and British Library dialect audio collection, various Staffs and Shrops speakers - Chris J. 86.137.4.232 20:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for giving the sources - I see the short I transcribed as [e] in some of the pages describing the Stoke recordings in the British Library collection.--JHJ 20:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Stress

Would it be appropriate for someone to add a bit about English English stress in words, like the difference between nouns and verbs ('pro,duce v ,pro'duce etc)

82.41.202.33 17:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

English English is as much a dialect as US-American English is

The beginning of this article and American English (which should be called US-American English in a less provincial and US-centric way) should be similar:

"US-American English (AmE) is the dialect of the English language used mostly in the United States of America." --Espoo 11:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As a Brit, I assure you that calling it 'American English' is the norm, in the same way that 'America' means the US. No offence intended to the Bolivians, Canadians etc, but that's just the way it is. Earthlyreason (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

English English v British English

British English is clearly a written language with minor local vocabulary differences (though less so than between different levels of education) and a wide variety of regional and local spoken accents. English English is the same written language, but just a subset of of the accents. But is there any evidence that it is a useful subset? I think not. --09:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, agreed - as various contributors have pointed out, there is no such thing as 'English English' in general usage or among those with a specific interest in the language. An arbitrary boundary has been drawn between the collected various dialects and styles of English as spoken and written in England and those of Scotland or Wales that is impossible to justify compared with the differences among the individual dialects and styles throughout the British Isles. (I am an editor, working in British and American English.) This whole item should be subsumed into the 'British English' article. Earthlyreason (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, you are replying to a message from 1 year 8 months ago, and a lot has happened since then including a discussion and vote about merging this which the decision was made not to merge. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Note to all: this discussion took place when this article was called 'English English' Earthlyreason (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Manchester

I believe there is a strong case for adding Manchester as a seperate accent from Lancashire (compare, for example, the speech of Liam Gallagher with that of Peter Kay). Though Mancunian derives from Lancashire speech, it differs in many key ways, including:

  • -er endings, spoken as [ə] in Lancashire become [ɒ] in Mancunian
  • -ey endings, spoken as [ɪ] in Lancashire become [ɛ] in Mancunian
  • -tle endings are often spoken [kʊl]
  • ar elements spoken as [aː]
  • r spoken with mild alveolar trill in many instances
  • th spoken as [v]
  • Sporadic restoration of [t] instead of glottal stop
  • fair and fur are not homophones; ['fɛə] and ['fʊɹ] respectively
  • [s] for s, not [z]

I can offer no citations other than living in the crossover area of these two accents for my entire life --Adzz 01:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I too would propose this. It's especially noticable in words like Manchester which can sound like Manchestoh [man.tʃɛs.tɒ], whereas in Lancashire it would be pronounced as [man.tʃɛs.tə] or sometimes [man.tʃ ̩s.tə]. Just out of interest, where abouts in Greater Manchester are you from Adzz? -- Boothman /tɔːk/. 13:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC).

To my non-native ear I find Manchester and dare I say it Liverpool, quite similar (and Stoke!), but all quite distinct to the rest of Lancashire. I agree that the there should be articles seperate to Lancashire. Bevo74 16:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would support distinguishing them if and only if suitable references for the differences described can be found. We shouldn't add descriptions based on our own impressions of how the accents sound. (By the way, Boothman, the first vowel in Manchester is surely [a], not [æ], in both the accents you're talking about.)--JHJ 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm still a bit ropey on the old IPA, JHJ. I find the IPA chart page confusing. I've changed it now.

For references, a few examples can be found here, although these tend to be recorded from the older generation of people, who sound more like the Lancashire accent of today. I also noted from these recordings that Manc speech tends to have a nasal quality which is not found in the rest of Lancashire. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 10:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC).

November 2006, followup

It seems this has not been acted upon, but I agree with the proposals and think there are sufficient grounds with which to seperate Manchester from Lanacastrian (though keep mentions of the inextricable links). I'd be inclined to note that the accent doesn't just vapourise once addresses change outside of the city of Manchester. Places in Oldham and Rochdale also have Mancunian accents (albeit watered down) - Certainly as an Oldhamer, I'm often assumed to be Mancunian rather than Lancastrian because of my accent.

However, anecdotes aside, I maintain that this proposal should be acted upon swiftly. Jhamez84 23:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree- Manchester should definitely have its own segment. Also, Dominic what's-his-face (the one from Lost) is from Stockport, not Manchester- can't we add actual Mancunians? There are plenty of them! The Stone Roses, for example...80.7.186.169 (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Part of Manchester (e.g. Wythenshawe) was originally in Cheshire. As it is by the Lancs-Cheshire border, it is bound to be a bit more Cheshiran. The same applies everywhere. I could definitely distinguish Sheffield from the rest of Yorkshire: in brief, it has more Midland features. People from Oldham sound more Yorkshire than people from Manchester do, because they are nearer the Yorkshire border: there is always a drift.
In the academic works, such as the BBC Voices survey or the Survey of English Dialects, Manchester has never been treated as particularly distinctive, so I do not think that it is worth treating it as separate. We have to avoid creating too many accent groups. Epa101 (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Examples of people with accents

Inaccurate, misleading, incomplete... it needs to be made clear to readers that the limited scope of these lists is perhaps only to allow the reader to identify accents through hearing people they might be familiar with. As it is it seems to suggest that regional accents in public figures are somehow unusual (rather than, of course, the norm - only a small minority of British people speak RP or some other form of "neutral" English, if there is such a thing).

I would hasard that there is no such thing as "neutral" English. What would define its neutrality? Djcartwright 03:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is ridiculous. --SandyDancer 00:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Peter Sallis is given as an example in the Yorkshire section, but he is in fact a southerner. 86.139.170.51 (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Point for consideration

I've added some comments above about the Mancunian accent needing some work (in the article!), and hope this can be acted upon.

However, a few points I'd like to raise is that this article doesn't acknowledge that their are potential pitfalls and gradiants to accents. E.g. does a Rochdale accent only relate to the town proper, or the wider Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale; is it Mancunian or Lancastrian?; does this town's ethnic minority population legitimately form part of/influence the local accent?

The Lancashire section does not comply with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) in that it states Oldham and Rochdale are part of Lancashire - they are infact part of Greater Manchester - does this have a bearing upon the modern day accent?

At present the article seems to assume that Accents have specific ethno-administrative bounds defined in science, whereas it is quite the contrary. Jhamez84 00:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The modern-day accent of Rochdale (the accent is much the same throughout the whole borough) is more akin to the Mancunian accent of a few years ago, but slightly less nasal. Same goes for Bury, Oldham, Ashton, etc. And contrary to popular belief, Oldham and Rochdale are located in Lancashire, because Greater Manchester is a ceremonial county used for fire services and police forces, and not actually a real place. And about the ethnic minority influence; possibly it may have some effect on the general accent of a town, but seen as the size of ethic minority in the area as a whole is pretty standard, it would be hard to tell. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 15:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC).
With respect, on Wikipedia, due to consesus and interestingly, law, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) state that we use the modern county systems as these are the primary geographic reference frame. Thus Oldham and Rochdale, do not form Lancashire but Greater Manchester. That aside, I think we need much more sourcing for this article as it is largely based upon anecdotal evidence. And I think my previous comments raise important issues as to why. Jhamez84 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't matter really whether Oldham and Rochdale are in Lancs or Greater Manchester, the accents are Oldhamer and Rochdalian respectively. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 16:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC).

The phrase "Lancashire accent" usually includes Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, etc., although usually excludes Liverpool. Bit strange! The problem with using modern counties is that would we then have to divide Yorkshire into four sections? That would be havoc, considering that accents in Yorkshire do not conform to those divisions very well.

Also, to Boothman, I think that Rochdale has a lot more similarities with West Yorkshire than those other towns that you mention do. However, Jhames84 raises a good point about what exactly is a "Rochdale accent". Epa101 20:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And my point really applies to other accents which are defined by town-names, not just to Rochdale. At what point does a Scouse accent become Lancastrian? And the Same for Mancunian to Lancastrian? Are these one and the same? What are the academic writings and understandings on this?... at present, this is unclear in the article.
However, to help, there is a map above on this talk page. Whilst it is a little inaccurate, if something simillar could be produced for the main article page, then I think this would be a major help in taking this article forwards. Jhamez84 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know quite where to put this, but this section seems closest. What I want to put forward is an item on The King's English: I have a recollection of reading (all my books are packed so I can't say what author or title), in a history published, I'd say around the middle of the 20th century, that King Edward III, who was known as The Law-Giver, was bothered by the fact that there was a large variety of dialects around his realm. So he decreed a standard, the King's English, as the only language to be used in his law courts. Sorry I can't be more specific, but surely this ought to be cited if research shows it to be correct.Edetic (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples

Is it possible to put some more word examples in the "South-East Midlands"? mrhappyhour 04/12/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.19.21.168 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

A year and a half later, I have done. I scanned down The Linguistic Atlas of England. This area is definitely the closest to R.P. though. There are just a few differences. Epa101 (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Norfolk Accent

I've noticed that the East Anglian Dialects are mentioned in both the midlands and southern section. I'm going to create a new section for these as the Norfolk dialect is completly different to Southern, West country and midlands accents and dialects. Thanks —WitanOfNorfolk Witanofnorfolk 03:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ng-coalescence

I removed this text from the first section: "*Use of "inge" instead of ing meaning words like England are pronouced EnGERland". This is not a characteristic of EngEng as a whole, but of certain parts of the North. It is also described in a non-scientific and potentially misleading way: rhotic speakers such as myself would interpret 'EnGERland' as [INg@`ln=d], rather than [INg@ln=d] as was probably intended. Makerowner 00:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is generally a Midland thing. It can be heard as far north as Manchester, but no further north. Epa101 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename

(Moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English English. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

Probably a neologism- merge to British English or rename to English language in England. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 08:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - seems like more than a neologism, or if anything a very, very well researched something. It makes some sense as British English might be called English English in Britain (much like how football is football, not soccer in the United States.) Guroadrunner 08:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Football is football in England as well. 58.164.28.146 08:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I meant Football is NFL, not soccer. Guroadrunner 09:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
In Britain, the term 'English English' is not used to mean anything.
  • Speedy close (quickly, before someone starts making horrible Little Caesars jokes). I don't see anyone (including the nominator) calling for deletion here, and the article is reasonable well-sourced. Continue this discussion at Talk:English English or WP:RM if necessary. cab 09:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, well referenced. Englishrose 09:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you cite reputable academic sources that talk about "English English"? If you can't and it turns out that it is a neologism it should definitely be renamed or merged. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • OK I now see the article claims that the phrase has been used in academic circles since the publication of Language in the British Isles in 1984 but I actually can't see any citation for that. However I still think the term is confusing and the alternative term "English in England" would seem more precise. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep + maybe rename. I'm a linguist and I've never hears of such an umbrella term for English dialects. I'm certainly not up do date in English dialectology research, but "English English" sounds like a neologism to me. Experts such as Daniel Jones, David Crystal or Steven Pinker have never used it AFAIK. I'd like to see a reliable source indicating such usage. Anyway, the article itself is excellent. --Targeman 12:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to English language in England. The notability of the topic is in doubt, but the term appears to be insufficiently established, and it's also downright confusing. Mowsbury 12:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to [[English language in England (or other title) and speedy keep per "cab" above. There's no need to delete this article. It's well-developed with ample discussion and references. Shalom Hello 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename correctlyTaprobanus 14:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep There is no need whatsoever for this article to even be propsed for deletetion, as it is a perfectly valid article, with valid sources, and discusses in depth the various regional dialects. Re-naming it might be a option, but just to propose this article for deletion which is what the proposal is for no matter what is said above by the nominator - no. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per JulesH or perhaps Mowsbury; adjust text accordingly. Title conforms to "X English", like dialects Scottish English, Welsh English, Manx English, American English etc., but I agree the current title sounds silly, and is unsourced as a scholarly term. — mholland (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to something (perhaps English language in England as nominated). The subject is noteworthy and many reliable sources exist for it, the title is unfortunate. Carlossuarez46 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename, just because it has a bad name does not make the topic a neologism. I slightly prefer English dialects of England but English language in England is acceptable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Do Not Rename. The term English English is currently preferred by most linguists, notably Peter Trudgill (see e.g. his book International English, where the term English English is used all the time.) ISBN 0-340-80834-9, pp. 1-2. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber
And I suggest that this article be nominated for deletion instead---completely unsourced; the term is never used by linguists (since it makes little sense), it just gets about 300 independent Google hits---it fails WP:N anyway. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or rename I've never heard of 'English English' but I can see how it might be a generic term for all regional dialects in England. Perhaps rename to English dialects. The article looks pretty good to me, no reason to delete. --Malcolmxl5 23:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Oh, I see we have an redirect named English dialects]. --Malcolmxl5 23:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
"English dialects" means "dialects of the English language" (not only England, but also Scotland, North America, Australia, etc.) "English English" is the term currently used by Trudgill and other linguists; see Trudgill and Hannah, International English, pp. 1-2. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've done some research. It would seem that English English is not a neologism after all, Trudgill introduced the term in a book of his way back in 1984. The problem is, Trudgill seems to crop up almost every time the term is mentioned. So I still have my doubts about the widespread use of this term by scientists other than Trudgill. I myself have studied under a renowned linguist and I've worked as a teacher and translator but every time I've heard "English English", it was delivered with air quotes. Conclusion: I wouldn't insist on renaming the article that much now. But if the name stays, we'd need plenty of redirect options because most people are unaware of this term.--Targeman 00:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge Proposal Sep 2007

As a merge tag has been added and there's no discussion, should the tag be removed? Personally merging just Eng.Eng into Br.Eng, but not the other neighbouring versions of English makes as much as sense as merging England into Britain. Bevo74 17:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fully agreed. I saw little point on commenting simply because the proposal is clearly missing the point about the huge differences between the two articles, and the need for there to be different articles as they are on totally different topics. The two articles should not be merged at all, and as you say there has been no discussion until now s surely the tags can be removed. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
English English is an awful title though. Jooler 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The title though is one thing, which has been discussed before, but that is for another debate. This proposal though is not in my opinion relevant as the two articles are about different things. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I asked for cites to back up the claim that the term English English was the most widely used term. As no citations have been provided to that effect (cites from the person who originated the term don't count) I will move the article to English language in England in the next couple of days. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Moved. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You did not ask for sources on this talk page. The above discussion was moved here from your declined attempt at deleting thir article, and it was on there that you asked for sources, not here, so it is hardly surprising that no-one has responded to you. You have now tried to get the article deleted which was declined, and in addition you are now moving the article despite the result of your re-naming/deletion proposal being to keep it as it is. Regardless of the title not being the best, there was no consensus for the move. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The title and lack of citations backing up the claim that this was the most widely used term was discussed on the afd discussion which was been posted on this talkpage sometime ago. I posted a cite request on the main page asking for citations that this was the most widely used term months ago. As clearly noone could be bothered to or could not find a citation it was totally appropriate to move the page to a more descriptive term. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Something everyone seems to have overlooked is that "English English" is the name given in dialogue to Cockney Rhyming Slang in the film Austin Powers in Goldmember. I have a suspicion that that may be what the term is better known for amongst the public at large but can't say for sure, especially as Google brings up so many hits which just happen to have the same word next to eact other. ("e.g. South African English. English is...") Timrollpickering (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved

I've moved the article back to the term which is most widely used in the linguistic literature, and the only one I've heard of. Please don't move it again without making a move request. - Francis Tyers · 14:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

From the OED (SECOND EDITION 1989):

c. English English, English as spoken in England as differentiated from that spoken, e.g., in the United States of America.
1804 M. WILMOT Let. 30 May in Londonderry & Hyde Russ. Jrnls. (1934) I. 102 If the other side is not English English, it is just the sort of language that might make one blush for what it is. 1943 Spectator 5 Feb. 120/1 Of the two hundred million people speaking English nearly seven-tenths live in the United States, and another tenth in the British Dominions are as much influenced by American as by English English. 1958 Listener 18 Dec. 1050/1 To get round the difficulty of putting Lorca across full-bloodedly, producers have had recourse to Irish, Cockney, and West Country speech... Lorca's plays suffer in English English because we do not like to grasp his nettles. 1961 H. R. F. KEATING Rush on Ultimate i. 13 ‘I never know what's Austalian and what's English... Can you call it the gen over here?’.. ‘From what I gather from the boys it's a bit dated now, but it's English English all right.’ 1966 S. HARVESTER Treacherous Road i. 9 Most educated Egyptians spoke English English.

I think over 200 years is a fairly reasonable pedigree for a term. - Francis Tyers · 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It does seem that a lot of people (including myself) have never heard the term 'English English' actually used. Those arguing in favour are citing a few academics, who may be pushing a definition that suits them, and who certainly don't overrule general usage. The use of the term 'British English' is common and entirely sufficient for the concept we are dealing with. Earthlyreason (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


mention of North-American English in the article

This article says / originally said "Parts of the Eastern United States where the upper classes historically looked to England for standards of speech have non-rhotic pronunciation, most notably Eastern New England and New York City." This is patently false. As the famous studies of Labov (1969) showed, lower class dialects in New York City were much more non-rhotic than higher class ones. This holds true today. The reason there are non-rhotic dialects in North America is due to original British settlement patterns on the coast in the 17th and 18th centuries (e.g. Yorkshire and Anglia settlers in Massachussetts, Westcountry settlers in the Virginia tidewater, etc.). It has nothing to do with more recent trends. A police officer in the Bronx or Brooklyn with Italian, Irish and Russian Jewish heritage does not have a non-rhotic accent because he is trying to immitate a professor from Oxford. True, there are a few dialects ('Bhramin' for one) in and around Boston that partially maintained (especially in the first half of the 20th century) non-rhotic speech based on "more prestigious" notions of British English. However, overall, the non-rhotic nature of many dialects in North America has nothing to do with "looking to England." Besides, this article is about the English spoken in England (English English) not about those spoken in North America. Stereotypes and assumptions about American English held by the general British population do not belong in any article on dialectal variations in the English language spoken around the world. 71.217.168.137 (talk)Molecules and Morphemes —Preceding comment was added at 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"English English" is a grotesque tautology

Since the term "English" refers to the people and language of England, to say "English English" is ridiculous and repugnant. All other qualifiers, such as Welsh English, Australian English, etc. are necessary insofar as those dialects differ from the language spoken in England, and regional varieties, such as West Country English, London English, are also perfectly fine and useful. But "English English" is completely unacceptable. TharkunColl (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree agree, this page should be moved to Anglo English. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Well that's just as bad, since "Anglo" just means "English". TharkunColl (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
What other name could we use? Or does this article deserve to be 'deleted'? GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. How about something like English in England? At least that doesn't imply that "English English" is a proper name or anything. TharkunColl (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
'English in England' or 'England English', either will do. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I would be mindful of what third party sources call it. If they use English English, for better or worse, we should adopt the same, WP:OR-and-all. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It is a daft title. How about English accents and dialects ? I know it's longer but it would get around any 'well that's what they call it on the internet' problems, as there'll be loads of sources about the accents and/or dialects. I doubt any academics in high standing would call it 'English English' simply because such a duplication is a poor use of English. Also, that the English is English, is sort of implied. The same as you don't usually have to say 'Paris (France)'. Merkinsmum 14:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move: English in England

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was move to English language in England. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-controversial-ish, so much so that it's already mentioned in the lead as an alternative term for it. It is a better use of English, stylistically and perhaps grammatically, and more understandable. I was unsure whether to move, without checking with you all first, so I thought I'd check first. Merkinsmum 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Howabout, Anglo English (I know, Anglo is English, but it would look better)? GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There certainly seems to be enough here to keep it separate from British English - for example, in terms of pronunciation Scottish and English English (oops, English in Scotland and in England) are as different from each other as they are from anything else. As for vocabulary, dictionaries like the Merriam-Webster have entries with Scot and Brit, but also often Eng or Eng dial. No doubt the formal written varieties of England and Scotland are similar, and modern words like motorway are likely to be common to both, but that is quite superficial linguistically. It makes a lot of sense to me that so much of the linguistic treatment should be here rather than at British English.
Also, I don't think the comment that English English = English needs to be taken seriously.Joeldl (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

comment- I doubt 'anglo english' is used that often in this context, and it's less easily understandable what is meant. But that'd be an improvement too IMHO.Merkinsmum 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

comment - Joeldl, your suggestion that 'English language in England' might be thought to contain usage data is stretching it. Most 3 or 4 word titles could be taken to mean something different if you squint at them, but this suggestion is already much clearer than 'English English', which leaves many of us nonplussed. Earthlyreason (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrewa- as your example shows, it sounds like something a child would say. Not really an encyclopedic, professional style.Merkinsmum 21:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The fallacy here is in inferring that because my example shows that it's something a child would say (which is true), then it is something which only a child would say (which is false). Disagree that it's not really an encyclopedic, professional style. Don't you see a problem with an argument that leads you to implicitly accuse the OED of this?
There are obviously strong feelings about this, and I'm trying to understand exactly why. And what to do about them comes next. Andrewa (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Are there any references (nothing crude like Google hits — maybe some scholarly output) to back up any of the camps above? — AjaxSmack 06:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Support for move to English language in England (per concerns of User:Bill Reid) or Merge with British English. The current name is silly. British English already covers virtually all of the features unique to the English of England. Of course, Scottish Northern Irish and Welsh English are also descriptively British, but political correctness aside, these varieties (exluding perhaps much Welsh English) are no more like British English than Australian English or Irish English, and this situation is just another one of the absurd applications of political structures to more natural linguistic realities. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
English English is a term attested in the Oxford and used in the scientific literature. Also, it makes sense to cover English dialects separately from Scottish ones, because they are so different, and share many features amongst themselves. British English should be mainly for common features distinguishing them from other varieties, with some coverage of the specific features of English English and Scottish English. I would point out that the most detailed coverage of the pronunciation of Canadian English is not at Canadian English for example, but at West/Central Canadian English, because that's what makes the most sense linguistically. There's no reason English English should be any different. Joeldl (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are no diagnostic features of spoken BE that are general throughout and exclusive to Britain. BE is a de facto term for the English of England, but with the written version added to the mix. I know the term is used, but I also know just as many as use it think it's daft. Treat the dialects as the UK treat their politics, devolution for the "Celtic fringe" with Westminster being both the British and English parliament. BE can be a Westminster. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Scottish English and English English do share a good deal of vocabulary setting them apart from North American English, and probably a good deal of modern institutional vocabulary (asbo, etc.,) setting them apart from Australia, New Zealand, etc. So there is much to be said for there being an article at British English. I don't think that British English is a de facto term for English English any more than Britain is a de facto term for England. Joeldl (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Scottish and American English share vocabulary not in English English; English English share a vocabulary and phonology with American English not in Scottish English; Scottish English and Irish English share a vast range of sounds not in English English, with some in American English. Scottish English shares some phonology with New Zealand and Canadian English not in English English or American English. English English shares a great deal of phonology with Australian English not in Irish, Scottish or American English. Some elements of American English shares sounds not in Scottish or Irish English but in Caribbean English. So there we have Americano-Caribean English English, Hiberno-Scottish English, Anglo-American English, Scoto-American English, Hiberno-American English, Scoto-Hiberno-American English, Scoto-Hiberno-New Zealand-Canadian English and Anglo-Australian English. And that's assuming these countries are good categories in the first place. British English is English English de facto so far as either exist meaningfully. British English when exluding written form and Irish and Commonwealth Englishes is a meaningless classification invented 1) to cover English English without using that name or 2) to go along with political boundaries irrelevant to language. That's the way linguistics are usually anyways ... slavish to nationalism and political change. Undoubtedly we'd be talking about UFCSM English if the United Federation of Canada, Singapore and Middlesex were ever formed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If anything these arguments seem to run against British English as a meaningful term. Your argument seems to be that since the term is used, it must be something, and the English of Britain is not an interesting notion, so it must refer to the English of England. That's a good theory, but on phonetic grounds, English English is a very meaningful category, and British English will never be opposed to Scottish English. Again, I refer you to the fact that the most comprehensive treatment of the phonology of the English of 90% of English Canadians is at West/Central Canadian English, and not at Canadian English, because that is what makes the most sense on purely linguistic grounds. Like the English and Scottish, "West/Central" Canadians and Atlantic Canadians share many words because belonging to the same country means there are shared institutions, and many words spread through the national media. That means political unions have significant impacts on language. So having Canadian English also makes sense, as does having the artricle British English. In any case, you're arguing for a merger, which is a separate issue and should not be decided in this move request. Joeldl (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Either or. West/Central" Canadians English ... is that the same mid-Western UFCSM English? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Precisely my point: even though the name was unusual, it was chosen on linguistic grounds. But in the present case, we have in addition the luxury of having a well-attested name: English English. Joeldl (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

comment just to say I am open to any other prospective titles that people suggest as an alternative to the kiddies' 'English English.' 'English in England' was just one I happened to select without thinking of the other ones you are mentioning.Merkinsmum 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd ask for citations of these names in dictionaries, etc., since we already have one from the Oxford for English English, given in the article. Joeldl (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I don't think the OED was written by or for kiddies. Exactly what is it that offends you about the current title? You're obviously not the only one, and feelings are obviously strong: Grotesque, ridiculous and repugnant, and daft are some of the descriptions of the term English English from earlier discussion. But I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would feel this strongly about it, especially in the face of such strong evidence that so many of us use it. Andrewa (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The two senses are not at all distinct. English as a name for the language is really just a shorthand way of say the "English language" - i.e., the language that is English. We could also have the "English people" - i.e., the people that are English. TharkunColl (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is so provincial as a metropolis. The large majority of native speakers of English who are not from England will disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether they disagree or not, the fact remains that they are speaking (versions of) the language of the English. There's a clue in its name. TharkunColl (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
To respond to all of your concerns, yes, I find it confusing. I didn't even know what the page was talking about until I got here (what is "English English?" - a form of English emphasized abroad being it isn't, say, Spanish English, but uses proper grammar? - I had no idea). And please understand I am not accusing anyone, but I am already worried that this debate is bound to take on silly nationalist overtones. This has nothing to do with shirking the English, but making sure the title of the articles makes sense. It's all well and good to remain consistent in naming an article, unless it conflicts with the understanding of the title.
  • Support - Although "English language in England" would be a better title and leaves less to confuse. NB There are too many comments in this request for move section. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. 'English in England' isn't a perfect title, but it's a lot better than 'English English', which looks weird and is just going to confuse people. 'The English language in England' would be less confusing still. Terraxos (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - 'English in England', or 'English language in England', or any of the proposed alternatives. The key issue is that the use of the language in England is not a single concept, but rather a group of accents and practices. By contrast, ‘British English’ is at least held to be a single entity, even if in practice it means different things to different people. Similarly Australian English, American English etc. Thus we need a description of the topic, not a name that suggests a recognised single variant. (I prefer 'English in England', as 'English' already unambiguously identifies the language, by contrast with 'The English ..') Earthlyreason (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Only two dialects in use?

http://archive.thisislancashire.co.uk/2003/10/6/528171.html I found this 2003 article, where a member of the Lancashire Dialect Society says that "experts" have concluded that the only two dialects left in everyday use are Yorkshire and North Cumbria. Does anyone else know of this expert evidence? I would be interested to know of it. I would have thought that County Durham would be still classed as in use. Epa101 (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The King's English

I don't know quite where to put this, but this section seems closest. What I want to put forward is an item on The King's English: I have a recollection of reading (all my books are packed so I can't say what author or title), in a history published, I'd say around the middle of the 20th century, that King Edward III, who was known as The Law-Giver, was bothered by the fact that there was a large variety of dialects around his realm. So he decreed a standard, the King's English, as the only language to be used in his law courts.

Sorry I can't be more specific, but surely this ought to be cited if research shows it to be correct.Edetic (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC) (Moved and placed under its own Heading: Edetic (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

I think that might be better off in the Received Pronunciation article. This article is more for how English is currently spoken in England whilst that is more of a historical item. I should think that Edward III's way of speaking did not survive into the 20th century, before which R.P. was not really established. Epa101 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
To follow up, this is true but it is now irrelevent to spoken English. It was very important for how words were spelt; prior to this, people would spell words in a variety of ways. Edward III wanted to avoid ambiguities in the law, so he introduced this standard but it was not static. If you look back to the 18th century, you can find sommer instead of summer, shew instead of show, etc. It has all changed beyond recognition since Edward III. Epa101 (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I've heard of the Queen's English, to mean received pronunciation, but never the King's English (unless Lizzy has a secret she hasn't let on...) KillerKat (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

rhotic Rs

There is a contradiction in this article, as the introduction states that rhotisation is only found in the west of the country, and extremely rarely the further east you get, but then goes on to claim that the norfolk/cambridge accent features rhotic r's. Could someone please clear this confusion up? I would suggest that the intoduction is probably the bit that's correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.98.2 (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just plain English

Would somebody like to note that people in England never use any of the absurd terms such as 'English English' or 'Anglo English' but simple refer to their language as 'English'? It seems ludicrous not to mention so...--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Canadians also refer to their language simply as "English", so how do you propose to distinguish between the two varieties? Joeldl (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This will be an issue for any language whose speakers call it the same thing regardless of region. French speakers in both France and Québec call their own language français. Spanish is a little more complicated, as both español (referring to Spain) and castellano (referring to Castile) are used internationally for the name of the language. In Spain itself, castellano is common because it's not the only native language spoken in Spain. And for any international language such as this, as soon as the scope of terminology becomes international (as with Wikipedia), you can no longer use region-specific terms (such as "English" referring to the English language of England) in a maximum capacity for readers from all countries. Besides, to other parts of the English-speaking world, some dialects and accents of English in England are so thick as to sound like different languages anyway, and may strike a listener's ears as "not English" (at least as they understand English), as paradoxical as that might seem. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
English (England) would be best if you ask me! --Cameron* 16:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
English English seemed fine to me, and was the best attested choice. But many people seemed to dislike it, possibly for reasons similar to yours. Joeldl (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

English is the language spoken by English people in England. All other forms of English are derived from this root in one way or another. I am somewhat amazed at this bizarre tautology English English, it seems to be derived from a joke in an Austin Powers movie (which incidentally uses Cockney Rhyming Slang).

English as a language is by definition 1) The language used by an English person 2) the diverse forms of English, written and spoken, used throughout the world and broadly understood between different English speakers (with allowances for extreme differences in accent and regional variation of course)

As an English person I find it both offensive and confusing to have my language described as a dialect of itself. I can entirely understand a resident of the United States of America or Canada describing themselves as an English speaker, because they are speaking English by virtue of definition 2 in my paragraph above.

Why is it that some speakers of English (the language) who are not English (the nationality) don't seem to be able to accept the language I and other English people speak is just English without further classification, suffix or prefix, bloody silly tautology or movie reference? 212.69.61.195 (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


Seconded, this article should be merged with the English Language article, which should be purely about the enlish langauge, as the name suggesta, not about the various deviations of English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.231.187 (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Also agree, I am fairly tired of this article existing on Wikipedia, which is a world wide resource. It is absolutely absurd that because this is dominated by Americans and American culture (movie references) that the English must be relegated to a dialect of its own language, country and culture. I realise that the article is no longer called "English English" but this is still in the URL and is still referred to on Wikipedia in many places. British English is a bad enough of an insult, but this is just horrendous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.55.222 (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In looking at the English language as a whole, and how the various dialects exist by location, it would seem to make sense to me that the land where the language originated would have its own article. I see no problem whatsoever with this article. Though I fully agree, "English English" sounds absurd. 98.221.124.80 (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

All ways of speaking English are dialects of English, in linguistic terminology. There is no pure dialect of English that can simply be called 'English'. American domination of English culture has nothing to do with this; after all we call it American English too. You may use 'dialect' differently in normal speech, but academically a dialect is any variety of a language. 92.4.7.71 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Where in England Does the Bad-Lad Split Take Place?

I'm just curious. Thanks. Thegryseone (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Heaton

I would just like to point out that Paul Heaton's accent is certainly not a Hull one. This is because he is orginally from Doncaster I believe. The Hull accent is broadly characterised by the following: The "I" sound becomes an "A" and is elongated so that "Pint of mild" sounds like "Paarnt of maarld" The "O" sound becomes "Ur" so that "No smoking" becomes "Nur smurking" Other than this the accent is generally a Yorkshire one, i.e. a hard "A" in a words such as "bath" and the dropping of the "H" at the front of words. Also, an "ing" on the end of a verb is not pronounced as "ing" such as it is in areas of West Yorkhire, the "G" is dropped in Hull.

The classic phrase to hear the Hull accent is: "Ur nur, there's nur burl fu me cur-cur pops" i.e. "Oh no, there's no bowl for my cocoa pops" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.177.195 (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sustainable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.43.13.1 (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Examples section

Most of it is original research and I imagine it wouldn't be easy to provide references for a lot of people. Is it worth keeping if audio examples cannot be found (and used)? Bevo74 (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My two penn'orth is that it worth keeping everything not obviously wrong. It is after all specifically about English in England so I think examples are worth having here; there are plenty of other articles about English more generally.
I disagree strongly with Bevo74's objection. First of all, the factual claim is implausible; namely, the claim of difficulty of verification in many cases. It is implausible that we cannot verify the childhood history of highly public figures all of whom have biographical entries in Wikipedia. Second of all, the No Original Research policy is invoked in a way that although extremely frequent at Wikipedia, violates the spirit of the policy (or what should be the spirit of the policy). This second argument is one I intend to develop into an essay someday, once I figure out where to find the forums devoted to discussing policy. But for now the argument can be summarized. The term "original research" does not properly refer to any and all information that lies outside common knowledge. It is improper to attach the label "original research" to the act of gathering information which is readily available online AND whose truth is beyond reasonable dispute. Information or physical realities which are stipulated officially are examples of what I am referring to. Take the identity of the capital of the African country of Gabon. Almost every Wikipedian would have to look that up — I don't agree that this constitutes original research. Jimmy Wales unfortunately did not promulgate a fourth fundamental policy: do not replicate obvious falsehoods, because that violates Wikipedia's function as an encyclopedia. Therefore we have the atrocity, repeated hundreds of thousands of times a month, where somebody gets published by a Reliable Source asserting, let's imagine, that "the capital of Gabon is Timbuktu", and anyone who annotates the quote by providing the correct city is chided for violating WP:NOR.
To elaborate further, bits of local history or local culture are not common knowledge among most of humanity, but they are common knowledge among the locals. I am sure that many of the cited examples of England English dialect speakers are common knowledge in Britain. For example, I am sure that nearly every Englishman or Englishwoman can recognize at least several of the regional accents. I'm American, let's consider an American example. Virtually every American can recognize what a strong ("thick") "Southern" accent is. It is true that there are many Southern accents and that there also are are some dialects which are transitional between Southern accent and "Northern". Despite that, when a person X has a "thick" Southern accent, virtually all Americans would concur that person X has a thick Southern accent. People from abroad might not be competent to judge this, but to an American, the question would be beyond dispute ("plain as day").
The only validity I see in Bevo74's objection is in the fact that not everybody born and bred in a region with a very distinctive accent uses that accent. Therefore, it might not suffice to know that Ozzy Osbourne was born and bred in Birmingham. It is also likely that not every English person can confidently identify and distinguish between Scouse, Brummie, Geordie, etc. What I am suggesting is the following. Assuming that Ozzy Osbourne did spend his whole childhood in Birmingham, and assuming that nobody disputes whether he did, then he almost certainly acquired the Brummie accent. And assuming that he has kept the accent, then I am claiming that whenever he opens his mouth, every Midland or Northern English person will agree he speaks Brummie, and even be joined by many southern English. I further claim that it would not constitute original research to seek out a sound clip of Ozzy Osbourne speaking, because Ozzy is a media star and in the Western world the affluence and technology are such that virtually anybody can avail themselves of a sound clip of Ozzy speaking. In short, verifying what Ozzy Osbourne sounds like does not involve any of the philosophical problems of historiography (there is nothing to interpret, there is no valid doubt as to the authenticity, etc.). Dale Chock (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

North/South?

"This was geographically widespread, but the linguist A.C. Gibson stated that it did not extend to the far north, East Anglia, Essex, Wiltshire or Somerset.[8]"

Aren't Essex, Wiltshire and Somerset in the south of England?

Forgive me if I have overlooked something that makes north correct.

- Beau —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintenbeau (talk • contribs) 14:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It was not clear... It means that h-dropping did not occur in the north, nor in those southern counties. I've clarified it. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't Essex in East Anglia? SimonTrew (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but isn't East Anglia in the south, especially from the point of view of accents...? Though coming from Surrey, I think of everything to the north of Epsom as The North. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hard one to call, that, I admit. If it's a direct quote then it should stay as it is, I guess-- assuming it is a quote, it seemed a bit difficult to tell. I would probably say the South was anything south of the Thames (and remember London was in middlesex and did not absorb Southwark until what the late 19thc?) -- but of course it varies over centuries. As contrasted to being in the North or the Midlands I suppose it's in the South', but since East Anglia has always had rather a separate identity (mainly because it's been off the main north-south transport routes for a couple of thousand years, and partly because of the fens and marshes) I would describe it as separate. Poor things they try to put Herts and Beds in East Anglianow, poor things. (And I was born in Herts). SimonTrew (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
According to East Anglia, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Dale Chock (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 193.152.213.50, 4 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} There'a a typing error in "distinction between /w/ and /hw/"; it should be ".../w/ and /wh/"


193.152.213.50 (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanx! --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

/hw/ is the actual sound indicated by the spelling 'wh'. Either we should change it back to ".../w/ and /hw/", or remove the slashes (which indicate phonemic transcription). 92.4.7.71 (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Origins of English

This is going to be short and sweet, just something for people to discuss.

Has anyone else noticed how strange a language English actually is? It's the hardest language to learn for many people and is among the youngest of the world's languages. Where do you think English came from? Personally,I think that English was messed around too much by Britain's original Celtic languages (Welsh, Gaelic etc), and many European languages such as French, Latin and German. In my opinion it's just a bunch of randomly picked words from other languages that have changed over time, what do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.191.185 (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, and talk pages should be kept to discussion about improvement of the article itself, rather than discussion of the topic for interest's sake. —Entropy (T/C) 08:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are completely wrong. The English language has been around for at least two thousand years; which is definitely more than the Romance languages; which did not start to diversify from Latin until the eighth century. And English is a Germanic language; its basic vocabulary comes from Old English and Old Norse; with some extension vocabulary from the Romance languages or Greek. It is not a creole with the Romance languages; anymore than a lot of other languages spoken today are creoles with English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.166.150.53 (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:English_language_in_England/Archive_1&oldid=1140129423"