Talk:International English/Archive 3

Non-U.S. English / U.S. English sections
The last part of Non-U.S. English seems to only talk about American English usage in parts of the world. Why is this not in the U.S. English section? Further, having both sections claiming that it is the "standard in far more countries around the world" than the other is terrible. Which one is it? I have searched the internet and found no information which says how many or which countries use which English. I'd be very interested to see any information regarding this claim and also to the claim that Europeans use U.S. spelling (as mentioned below). Which part of Europe? Even if they do, which grammar do they use? American, British, and other varieties of English differ in more ways that just spelling. --Kuan 06:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As a Briton I would like more sources to support the "Non-US English vs. U.S. English" distinction. This seems to suggest that the U.S. English the world standard and other Englishes are "the rest" but, as Kuan asks, is U.S. English really the standard? By what measure? If the sections were "Non-U.K. English / U.K. English" what would be the reaction. --Timtak 08:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Claim on spelling in Europe
"and many in Europe use American spelling (though this is changing as the UK's influence over language questions in the EU continues to grow)."

I think a source on this should be required because it doesn't sound reasonable. If continental Europeans use American spelling despite the fact that they are taught British English in the schools, then there is nothing that the UK can do to stop them. KingOfAfrica 08:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that if English isn't your mother tongue, most people don't even know if a word they spell is British English or American English. At least that's true for me. --FrederikVds 19:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

More help?
I've taken the liberty of appealing for a linguist at the Wikiproject on languages. Hope that's OK. Maurreen 09:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * As this may take a few days, I've merged the Nov 30 version I mentioned above with the stub, so that any linguist willing to help will have something to look at. I'm not saying I agree with the version that is on the page, but it is at least internally consistent, though it needs references. It's all the stuff after this version that I found odd: the identification with British English, and the various names - World Standard English etc. I couldn't follow what was being said. Other editors should feel free to add or delete material as they see fit, of course. I'm not trying to take ownership of the page, just hoping we can find references. Slim 10:30, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Maurreen's little cry for assistance I've just come from Wikiproject languages. It is true that International English (IE) or World English (WE) is quite a comlex beast. It might be good to use some of the English Language Teaching (ELT) terminology in the article as a useful way of referrencing types of English. Perhaps there should be something about the differences between L1 English (mother tongue), L2 English (regional lingua franca, 'second language') and L3 English (international lingua franca). For example, English in New Zealand or Jamaica is L1, English in India or Kenya is L2 and English in China or Brazil is L3. Any thoughts? Gareth Hughes 11:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Gareth, I can only speak for myself, but this is exactly the kind of attention to detail I was hoping for. I worked in language schools before university and during two degrees to earn some money, and this is the context in which I've heard of the term, though I can barely remember any of it. Thank you, and thank you to Maurreen for finding you. Fire away if you know more or can point us in the right direct. Slim 11:47, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the confidence. International English is a difficult concept to pin down. The major difference between standard English dialects is pronunciation. The differences between American and British standard are easy enough to understand. As a Brit, my process of 'internationalisation' (or 'internationalization'!) is often the comprehension of American standards and the reduction of specific dialect phrases. It is mostly the removal of dialect specific language that allows internationalisation, but it is also comprehension of dialectal variants. There is no agreed corpus of International English, but a cline between the mutually comprehensible and the local obscurities of dialect. American English's dominance of a lot of world media and music means that even LA street talk might be heard in a Shanghai school room.


 * I think ELT terminology would be helpful here. There is plenty of variety just among the language spoken by L1 English speakers, but a South African can converse with a Bermudan without too much trouble. L2 English could be called Empire English because it was the lingua franca that developed throughout the British Empire. The modern terminology would be English as a Second Language (ESL). There is a strong historical connexion between the English dialects of many parts of Africa and Asia. Some western Euopean countries could also be considered to have made English an official language through years of education policy - the Netherlands for instance. L3 English is English as a Foreign Language, learnt in a context in which English plays no official role. L3 English is usually developed in a classroom and encouraged by world English media. It is often acquired for business, politics or academia. Note that these three levels do not reflect the competance of an individual speaker, but the cultural and historical context in which the language is acquired. I think that this kind of analysis gives a good introduction to the concept of International English. We could do an overview of English dialects here, but that's probably best served elsewhere. Gareth Hughes 13:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Gareth, thanks for your help. I like the direction you're taking. And I agree that it's probably best to keep discussion of dialects elsewhere.
 * Also, I realized after the fact that I could have given more context to my request. A longer version of the article is disputed. Maurreen 17:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Maurreen. I had a brief glance at Jallan's article; it looks good. What exactly is the dispute about? There seemed to be some discussion about whether International English is the same as Commonwealth English (which I called Empire English, off the top of my pith helmet). Certainly, the British Empire was an important factor in the internationalisation of English, and is responsible for the L2 band of English learning, but US English is having just as much influence on L3 band English. I think that some US referrences to International English are really about de-Americanised English: it's a negative rather than a positive. Perhaps this article should discuss the different views. I think for many L1 English speakers International English is a simplification and standardisation of their own dialect.

Can we draft a list of headings for the article here; an essay plan, if you like? Gareth Hughes 19:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Good idea, Gareth. As a start, I would suggest a heading/section saying who uses the term "international English," or "global English," providing references, and then a brief description of the way each group uses the term, if there is more than one group; or, if we're going to concentrate exclusively on the ESL meaning, what IE means in this context, who uses it, with references, as an introduction of, say, three paragraphs? Just a suggestion. Does it make sense? I think your introduction of the L1, L2 and L3 bands is very helpful. The disagreement was originally about the extent to which IE was equated with British-English. I felt it was not so identified, except incorrectly, and that any such identification should be fully referenced. Then when I read the rest of the article more carefully, I felt it seemed confused and unreferenced (unsourced). For my own part, my main concern is that the article be properly referenced. I don't really mind what claims are made, so long as reputable sources are used. Slim 20:31, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, the original disagreement concerned the usage of "International English" roughly to mean "British English". Regardless of whether that is correct usage, it appears to be used casually by a number of people.
 * I don't know enough about "International English" to help much. (In other words, I expect whatever you do will be fine with me.) I had never heard of the expression before seeing it used on Wikipedia community pages. As far as I can tell, its use by Wikipedians is at least generally to mean "non-American English".
 * I came in mainly to try to mediate the disagreement between Jallan and Slim. Maurreen 05:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see where you're coming from. British English is an important part of any discussion of International English, but it is probably better to get away from the polarisation of English into British and American, with everyone else in between. International English is mainly about intelligibility, and standard English dialects are broadly intelligible already. Who uses the term 'International English'? In business, I suspect it means the removal of dialect features. Gareth Hughes 19:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does mean that, to some, while others try to see it as a bundle of several dialects.  As to who uses it, please check my version at  which refers to TEIL 'Teaching English as an Internatonal Language and to IELTS, International English Language Testing System. From one point of view, just as intelligence is sometimes sarcastically defined as what an IQ test measures, so International English could be sarcastically defined as what IELTS measures. The web is full of courses offering training for people wishing to take the IELTS examinations. The prominence of these tests outside of North America may have been one of the reasons for the term International English being better known outside of the U.S. In North America the TOEFL examination is instead the standard for ESL. So I can find many excercise books and guides for taking the TOEFL test here in Toronto, but none of IELTS, and accordingly cannot tell exactly what they consider international English to be, other than from the small number of samples of their websites. But such books would be a style guide, in very practical terms, to International English. Even in North American some schools claim to teach "International English", for example the International English Institute, Fresno, California.

As to beginning with a definition and information about who uses it, I began with McArthur's definition which I believed was good enough: "Basically, it covers the English language at large, often (but not always or necessarily) implicitly seen as standard. It is also certainly commonly used in connection with the acquisition, use, and study of English as the world's lingua franca ('TEIL: Teaching English as an International Language'), and especially when the language is considered as a whole in contrast with American English, British English, South African English, and the like. &mdash; McArthur (2002, p. 444–45)" Any book with a title begnning Oxford Guide to ... is at least not totally unauthoritative (though certainly no more to be trusted implicitly than any book). I have no problem with another definition of course, if one can be found. But that definition fit most of what I discovered. (But more recently I have found International English also used to specifically to mean English as used by non-native speakers, contrasted with all the native Englishes. That should also appear as a third use, after consensus is reached on what is already here.)

As to Peter's discussion. She does not use the term "global English" at all, despite Slim's wording, though the meaning of the term Global English is close to being the same. Peters states: "So the idea of a fully fledged, regionally netural form of English is somewhat idealistic. We can however get closer to it in the written medium, by identifying the variants of English usage that have the widest distribution. Thousands of words are in fact written in the same way everywhere in the world &endash; like all those used so far in this paragraph. They make up the core of International English, though there are subtleties in terms of the set of meanings which are attached to a word in one region but not another – the subject of various entries in this book." Peters then considers the problems of spelling differences. Spelling is mostly ignored in other discussions I have seen, probably because the differences are so trivial, despite the fuss some make about them. Most of them would cause no problem in reading. U.S. kids who pick up a British book figure it out on their own quickly enough, if they even notice many of the differences. And the same works the other way.

But unless there is still belief that I am indulging in "original research" and that the article contains ideas that are particularly my own, or some belief that it misreprsents its sources, perhaps it should be restored and used as the basis for further work, rather than a shorter version missing major portions of the article. It is not standard Wikipedia practice to delete parts of an article without explanation. Unsupported suspicion of original research is not usually enough. I've been there also, looking at an article that borders on material I know or covers material I know, and seeing garbage in it. Sometimes checking further shows that it isn't garbage, or that the garbage can be neutralized by including it but also adding material that puts it into a particular context. I've yet to learn what is actually wrong with the article as I wrote it (other than that, as with any article, it could be improved, which I already knew.)

Jallan 03:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gareth's statement that it would be helpful to stay away from the polarization of English into American and British, as they're just two of the many countries where English is spoken as a first, second and third language.


 * I have no problem with any version of the article that is referenced. Instead of saying "some" people regard IE as X, but "others" regard it as Y, it's best to say who regards it as X or Y, and provide authoritative references. Also, there should be no novel narratives or new interpretations of IE that have not been published elsewhere. A suspicion of "original research" is indeed enough to justify asking questions; if the material has already been published, references will be available, and the burden of proof lies with the editor. Remember that the whole point of giving references is that any reader who doesn't know anything or much about the subject should be able to check the article's claims fairly easily. The article should simply be an overview of the material already published about IE, and shouldn't advance a new set or new synthesis of ideas, just as we discussed on No original research (draft rewrite) and Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite). Hope this helps. Whatever happened to the draft rewrite, by the way? Will it replace the current one, or what is the procedure? Slim 08:55, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hallo, Jallan: it's good to hear from you. I think Tom McArthur's work is the perfect source for material for this article. I think he calls it Standard English in the Oxford Guide. That links it to the regional standardisation processes, for example the informal creation of Canadian Standard English. An international standard is thus built on the regional standards. I think David Crystal refers to this as tridialectalism: the L1 English speaker has a confident idiolect that reflects their social and physical background, a standard regional dialect and an international standard dialect. Each dialect is spoken with decreasing confidence. An L3 English speaker would, perhaps, only have the last dialect with lower confidence. This confidence is nothing to do with competence, but is the acknowledgement that more specific dialects rely heavily on shared history to impart understanding (a bit like 'in jokes'), whereas standard dialects aim for ease of intelligibility. A similar situation exists for Arabic. Modern Standard Arabic is the world standard, and can be understood from Morocco to Iraq. However, it is quite different from any regional dialect, and just sounds odd when it si used in a colloquial context.

I don't think I fully understand the idea of 'no original research', but I do understand 'encyclopedism': the subject needs to be generally accepted. I think that having a number of us to criticise and edit could lead to good article here. Gareth Hughes 13:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A potential solution
I don't personal have any issue with what this article (as at Dec 31 04) is trying to convey, but I have an issue with the title "International English". There is no such thing as "International English" - it is not a recognised term in any academic sense. If the page were renamed to "English as a Global Language" then I think we have a neutral title which won't raise academic hackles (we could redirect the other terms into it). By all means it could mention that some people use the term "International English" to describe this, whereas others use "Global English", etc.

The topic is a messy and confused one, but that is no reason to exclude it from the 'pedia - if we accurately acknowledge the confusion around the subject then we have done our job. The current article does quite well, except that it creates the misleading view that "there is such a thing as 'International English' and here is what it is" which is simply not the case.

It would also be worthwhile to formally distinguish spoken and written English. To argue that there is a spoken "Global English" is highly contentious, however there is little dispute that there are two accepted orthographies (written versions) of English - British and American. The differences are mainly that British orthography contains more of what might be called "French-isms" (theatre vs theater, colour vs color, dialogue vs dialog). As was noted earlier the two orthographies are highly compatible and for the most part interchangable (as they are in the Wikipedia, the decision to not enforce one orthography over the other was made quite early on, hence both exist in some articles.)

Finally, there is an americocentric viewpoint that 'International English is that which is not spoken in America'. Despite the fact that I find this attitude repugnant, I always think it is worthwhile to at least identify such americocentrisms, so long as they do not get reinforced as a result.Manning 15:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Two comments. First, whatever is decided, there should be some article named "International English" because the concept exists, however confused, multiply defined, and academically unacceptable it is. It's used in many written works, so it should be explained, however challenging a complete and accurate explanation may be. Second, why should something that splits Britain from America be automatically considered "americocentric"? Many, possibly most, of the sources that use "International English" to mean "British English" are not American, but Commonwealth or former Commonwealth, and there is often an assumption that this form of "International English" is to be preferred. Would the U.S. likely be the source of a term that is dismissive of its own "dialect"? We "Americans" do a lot of stupid stuff, but we aren't the source for every divisive issue. &#9786; &mdash; Jeff Q 16:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's really much of a problem here. It seems that we are agreed on what direction the article should go, and we are agreed that there is no one water-tight definition of International English. I have heard this concept described as World English, Global English and Standard English as well as International English. I think it's reasonable that the overlapping meanings and names be discussed on the same page, and right here is good enough. British/American polarization is important, but we should not focus on it to such a degree that we do not see the breadth of English dialects. Gareth Hughes 17:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Manning that the title "international English" is misleading, because it suggests, to me anyway, that it exists. I would also prefer the term "English as a global language". Perhaps Gareth should choose the title depending on which is the most common term, if there is one. Slim 23:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I dispute the statement "Many, possibly most, of the sources that use "International English" to mean "British English" are not American, but Commonwealth or former Commonwealth". I have far less experience of the term 'International English' as a phrase used within the Commonwealth, and my experience of it is pretty much only as a phrase used by Americans to collectively describe English as it is used outside of the USA. I have also heard it used as a term to describe an (idealised) global standard version of English, but the term is hardly a universally accepted one.


 * I'm not aware of any good reason to create a British/American dichotomy for the spoken language - where is the reasoning? British English is that which is spoken in the United Kingdom (and it itself almost impossible to pin down - for this discussion I'll assume it simply means RP). I've encountered the perception within the 'pedia community that there is some unifying feature for English as it is spoken outside of the USA, and there is simply no basis for this assumption. American English is simply one of the variants of L1 English around the world and it differs from British English no more dramatically than Australian English does. (Sidenote: In fact Australian and American English share a lot of grammatical variants to British English - a reflection of the language having evolved in the UK since the time of colonisation. An example is the singular verb for collective nouns rather than the plural, hence "The commitee is discussing it" vs "The committee are discussing it").


 * The division of orthographies into British/American is fair enough, but I still fail to see why we need the term 'International English' for the orthography - certainly British orthography dominates globally overall, but American orthography dominates in South and Central America, the Philippines, Korea, Japan and parts of West Africa: so the term 'International English' fails to clarify anything in this area.


 * Anyway, I like the article and what it is trying to discuss, and I agree that the term "International English" should exist. However I would prefer to see it as a small article which disambiguates the various uses of the term, and points to an article entitled "English as a Global Language".Manning 23:54, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

"No original research"
I think No original research (draft rewrite) is ready for publicity to get review by the wider community, such as via RFC and the Village Pump. Maurreen 19:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Potential solution No. 2
I agree at least generally with Jeff Q and Gareth Hughes. If it's not too much of a burden on him, I'd like to suggest that most of us step back and give Gareth some time to see what improvements he might make to Jallan's version of the article.

My rationale is that:
 * 1) Gareth appears to know more about the subject that any of us, possibly more than all of us put together. I doubt he'll be accused of Americocentrism. And none of us have disagreed with anything from him.
 * 2) Jallan has put a serious amount of work into the article. It's possible that any improvements Gareth might make could resolve any disagreements.
 * 3) Stepping back temporarily could help the disagreements be resolved amicably. Maurreen 19:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll step back. I'm not really contributing anything useful here anymore. Thank you all for working on this challenging topic! &#9786; Jeff Q 05:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More comments and references
I agree with letting Gaeth take a go. I would like to see what Gareth can make of User:Jallan/International English.

I will however make some remarks on some of the comments made, as well as providing further sources for defining "International English", as an indication that McArthur's definition, which I quoted, was not idiosyncratic.

Manning stated: "I've encountered the perception within the 'pedia community that there is some unifying feature for English as it is spoken outside of the USA, and there is simply no basis for this assumption. American English is simply one of the variants of L1 English around the world and it differs from British English no more dramatically than Australian English does. (Sidenote: In fact Australian and American English share a lot of grammatical variants to British English - a reflection of the language having evolved in the UK since the time of colonisation. An example is the singular verb for collective nouns rather than the plural, hence 'The commitee is discussing it' vs 'The committee are discussing it')."

Tom McArthur, in Oxford Guide to World English (p. 362) states: "Remarkably, no features of grammar distinguish Australian from British usage, standard or non-standard."

That is what I have always understood about both Australian and New Zealand Engish. There are of course differences in vocabulary and accent. For further details see [http://www.immi.gov.au/amep/reports/pubs/papers/peters.htm "How English is English?" by Pam Peters] which goes into some detail about the resemblances between Australian English, British English, and American English, as well as speaking of "International English": "Thus 'Standard' or 'International English' as it is variously called is an abstract form of the language &mdash; abstracted from its contexts of use, and divested of whatever accent carries it." Also: "Those teaching EAP with overseas students who aim to return home can certainly prioritise the homogenous, region-free aspects of English grammar and vocabulary (in some quarters called International English)."

Wikipedia Grammatical number ascribes such usages as the committee are to British use, not American use. In my experience this is correct.

Plese check your information, Manning. Your opinion of what International English is and what British English is is also sourceless. I provided reputable sources, which Slim has discarded for reasons still not stated.

As to International English not existing, it exists both as a concept, and has done so for years, as indicated by quotations I provided. And International English of some kind also exists as a fact: since what is called "International English" is taught and is distinguished from teaching British English or American English or other native Englishes. World renowned Academics, some of whom I quoted, write about it and define it. Other academics mention it in papers and articles and argue about it. And, yes, some even say it does not exist, meaning, quite rightly, that there is yet no single International English dialect that yet exists and maybe there never will be. I thought my article made that clear. International English as taught, however, is an attempt to approach that kind of unified dialect, concentrating on idioms and vocabulary common to British English (and Australian English and so forth) and U.S. English. And it attempts in theory to be culturally neutral. But some people like to learn it with a BBC accent if they can. When something called International English is taught and discussed and argued over and defined and fought over, and when the discussions relate closely to McArthur's definition, which Slim removed with no explanation, then I think it does exist is some real sense, and that my sources are accurate, and my treatment of what I found there fair and in no way original research.

Some further material:

First just two of many International English teaching programs: University of West Flordia - International English Program International English Program Provide evidence that what they are teaching doesn't exist, some evidence of fraud. I can provide many more such evidences of schools that think they are teaching "International English" rather than strictly U.S. English or British English or some other native English.

See also "Theory versus practice in language planning and in the discourse of language planning", Robert de Beauregard". This is certainly not authoritative, but is indicative of common knowledge of the terms "International English" and "World English" in academic circles.

Here is a paper which defines International English yet again: "Relating the Curriculum to Regional Concerns: A Japanese Case Study" Gregory Hadley: "International English was roughly defined as English that is free from the cultural and linguistic influence of any one particular country, and which could be used to successfully communicate with other educated native or non-native speakers of English."

Also: "International English and the Anglo-American Hegemony: Quandary in the Asian Pacific Region": "International English is often defined as English that is spoken both by native and non-native speakers, and a language which is the property of the world instead of the property of the United States. The redefinition of English as an International Language (EIL) is a serious political undertaking, as is all language education at its core. Redefining English as an International Language is an attempt to denationalize English and divest the American hegemony from its claim on the English language." International English is explicitly defined as EIL in "A Concept of International English and Related Issues: From 'Real English' to 'Realistic English'?" Barbara Seidlhofer, University of Vienna]: "International English' can be read as shorthand for 'English as an international language' (EIL). The longer term is, however, though more unwieldy, more precise because it highlights the international use of English rather than suggesting, wrongly, that there is one clearly distinguishable, unitary variety called 'International English'. The abbreviation EIL is then mostly used in the rest of the paper."

This seems to be partly what bothers Slim, that you can't point to it. But that is irrelevant to discussing the concept, because those involved in discussing World English and World Englishes and in teaching English as an international language do discuss it and think they are, so far as they can, teaching something that approaches it. They all know you can't point to it exactly when considered as a single dialect, whence the multiple dialect approach that some prefer.

From TESOL 2004: "The extensive topic of International English with its ever-evolving implications for the field requires dialogue for a longer period of time than is permitted by the week-long convention. Therefore, the English as a Foreign Language Interest Section is offering this collaborative, online discussion session as part of the six-week Electronic Village. Some think that if the world uses one language, i.e. English, all disagreements will be solved, strive will be prevented and even military conflicts can be solved through friendly negotiations."

From "ACQUIRING CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE THROUGH CONTENT-ENRICHED INSTRUCTION" Maria Dueñas "For this purpose, International English has emerged as a 'sterilized' alternative in order to avoid the exclusive Anglo-American perspective which is perceived in some contexts as an ethnocentric and elitist imposition when established &#8211;consciously or unconsciously&#8212; as the only pattern for valid linguistic and cultural standards. A number of concepts associated with the threats of Anglo-American cultural dominance such as 'ideological colonization', 'cultural alienation', 'linguistic imperialism', and 'cultural indoctrination' have been defined."

See also Communicability as International English

And see: "Towards International English in EFL Classrooms in Japan" - Chiaki Yamaguchi

As to International English being identical with "Global English", Tom McArthur in the Oxford Guide to World English, (p. 2), states: "There are, at the present time, three labels for English as the universalizing language of the human race. The first of these is world English (with or without a capital W, and perhaps first used in the 1920s), which covers every kind of usage and user. It takes in everything from the most polished diplomatic, acadmeic, and media practice to the broadest of vernaculars and the most fractured of foriegnisms. The second is international English (with or without capital I), which, depending on context covers both Standard English (with or without capital S) world wide and the kind of common denominator business English (with or without capital B) used by natives and non-natives with one another. The third and most recent is global English (usually with a small g), which runs parallel with economic globalization. It has an MBA quality about it: the medium (and part maybe of the message) of a fast-moving deal-making globe-girdling élite." There is thus a difference in emphasis in how these terms are used. McArthur never returns to the term global English.

McArthur's somewhat supercilious description of the nuances connected to global English suggests to me the expression: "Say no to globalization, say yes to internationalization."

If Slim and Manning think there is something wrong with this, provide even a half-way reputable source that indicates what is wrong, not just what they think or feel, which is not acceptable for articles in Wikipedia, unless it has be backed up.

Is the above still not enough to establish that I was not presenting anything novel? So far, those most critical of what I have presented have provided nothing in the way of backup for their criticisms. My sources are at least reasonably authoritative, being reputable academics who have written on the subject. I have quoted and paraphrased them, and I believe not in any way misrepsented anything they have said. And I have established to the satisfaction to everyone here, that whether right or wrong, desireable or not desireable, the completely different usage of "International English" to mean approximately non-U.S. English also exists. That some dislike the usage and see no need for this usage to exist, see it is incorrect is irrelevant to it existing. It is not Wikipedia's place to say what English is correct or incorrect within articles, though it can cite others who so say.

Jallan 06:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have one question. You write: " . . . since what is called "International English" is taught and is distinguished from teaching British English or American English or other native Englishes." Who teaches "international English"? You say above that you can provide many sources, but my guess is these will be private language schools, which is how this discussion started. Do you have anything other than commercial language schools? Slim 06:32, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, another one. You write: "And I have established to the satisfaction to [sic] everyone here, that whether right or wrong, desireable [sic] or not desireable [sic], the completely different usage of "International English" to mean approximately non-U.S. English also exists." Where have you established this??

You know what, Jallan, this is getting too weird for me. You do what you want. Life's too short. That means there's no need to answer the questions above. Slim 06:37, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

This is a complicated concept that is still being developed; there are lots of ideas and usages, and some are contradictory. The trick is to find an article that speaks to all of these fairly. I've had a good read through Jallan's article and some of the other material quoted or linked. There is a lot of good work there. I think when it's put into the historical context of the global development of English it will make good sense of this discussion.

I think there should be some decent overspill from this discussion into Commonwealth English and Standard English, and I'm wondering about including this article on the Varieties of English template (see left), and including the template on this page. Any thoughts? Gareth Hughes 20:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That's all fine with me. Maurreen 08:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll be trying out a few bits of structure and content at User:Garzo/projects. There's not much there at the moment, but I'll be adding to it today. Gareth Hughes 11:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the template should include International English and the template itself should be put on this page. It's a good idea. --202.32.53.44 10:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revision draft
I have moved my initial revision attempt to User:Garzo/International English. It is still work in progress, but feel free to make edits to it. The template does not have International English listed on it yet. I feel that it is better to wait until we are agreed on the revision before the template is changed to invite visitors from related articles. Gareth Hughes 17:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think it looks good overall. I appreciate your work. Maurreen 06:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've played around with the text a little, and I now feel that User:Garzo/International English is ready to replace International English. I have a few more sources that I haven't got around to reading, and they might produce some extra material, but that can come later if at all.

Do we need to take a vote on replacing the current article with the revision? If you feel that the revision needs more work, please edit it or direct me to edit it. Gareth Hughes 17:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Gareth, no one has objected, so I think the revision should go in.
 * Thank you for your work. I had never heard of "international English" before Wikipedia. Casual usage on community pages made me curious, but I didn't find anything useful through Google.
 * You and Jallan have filled me in. Maurreen 05:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Maurreen, I have replaced the article with the revision. The old text is now archived at International English/archive just in case anyone wants to refer to it. We might want to ask an admin to delete User:Garzo/International English now. I am bad: creating all these pages! Gareth Hughes 11:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Metacomment
Bias: I am an American and Pennsylvanian by birth, from a family where "proper" English was strongly upheld; I swear my Uncle Bill worshipped Webster's Second Edition -- Southern Baptists resort less frequently to their Good Book. I am a certified TESOL instructor with years of experience in China teaching students of all ages and abilities how to use my language as a tool for communication.

My practice is to avoid the term "English" whenever such avoidance is not clumsy; I believe the correct name of my language -- at least my spoken language -- is "American". I assert that speakers of the British and American idioms have become mutually incomprehensible -- if not, then perhaps I anticipate, which I do willingly.

I believe that the concept of "International English" is foolish; that the American language has become the standard language of international science, commerce, and politics. I refuse to defend the process by which this happened, any more than I defend the empires of the British, the Spanish, the Romans, or the Zulus. It is a concomitant of political domination that one's neighbors learn one's language. I don't care for political domination.

My bias towards the effect of American language becoming the international standard, however, is all positive. I have long maintained that world peace will only be possible when all humans speak the same language and use the same words to mean the same things. One might well deplore the lost culture, but it is a small price to pay for an end to war. (Unfortunately, the condition is necessary, but insufficient: there will be other prices to pay as well.)

All that aside, it cannot be denied that the concept does exist of International English as a thing apart from the American, British, and for that matter, the Australian languages. I can't say how we could refuse to treat it. Some article must be written.

However, any attempt to endorse the concept is POV, no matter how impassioned (or apparently neutral). Worse, any attempt to define International English is highly biased. It is a concept that is never employed by anyone who does not have a political axe to grind, or does not fear those who do. Every user of the term has his own definition.

My suggestion is to cut the article roughly in half. Bring in a completely neutral party -- and don't be shy to sniff his crotch thoroughly, so to speak, to be sure he is not a crypto-American, crypto-Brit, or (heaven forfend) crypto-Ozzie. Ask him to cut out anything that smells to him of bias or partiality -- not merely toward one version of the concept, but in support (or against) the concept itself.

At present, I see nothing at all in this article that represents the majority opinion -- that held by nearly every (ignorant) American, and perhaps most other speakers of one sort of English or another: that "their" English is the only correct one, and that the very idea of "International English", or any other, is silly. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk 04:03, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)


 * I understand NPOV to be the fair treatment of a subject from all angles, giving due weight to each. I believe this is what was done. The article makes no attempt to say this is International English, but makes a good attempt at pointing out some of the concepts that surround it. This cannot be called POV: the article was prepared by speakers of different English dialects, and includes various ideas of what International English might be. The only suggestion that makes any sense to me is that the article could point out that many people ignorantly believe that their version of English should be internationalised because they find it so easy to understand. --Gareth Hughes 14:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gareth. Maurreen 16:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * How did that get by? I'm sorry; perhaps I was obtuse, or overqualified my remarks. Let me oversimplify them: I think it more or less obvious that almost every "native" speaker of English, regardless of make or model, thinks "his" English is English; all other forms of English are bastard pidgins; and that there is no such independent entity as International English.


 * This is like Time Cube -- it exists as a concept, and there are enough fanatic adherents that the topic must be covered, but not to be taken seriously. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk 03:18, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)


 * I believe the article is well sourced. And Gareth Hughes has more than layman's knowledge of the topic. Our individual opinions of "International English" or "international English" have little relevance.
 * As far as I can tell, the topic is represented fairly and accurately. If you disagree and wish something changed and want to be taken seriously, please state specifically what portion of the article you have a problem with and why. Maurreen 07:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I really find this whole comment quite offensive and outright incorrect. As pointed out in the section on International organisations, there are different organisations which use different standards.  This does not at all support your commment that the American language has become the standard language of international science, commerce, and politics.  It only further supports the notion that there is no specific form of international English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.29.179.103 (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

American English?
I've just noticed that a header for U.S. English was changed to American English. I'm not sure about this, but I often feel there are problems with the term. American is used widely as an adjective referring to the USA, but other American nations find this usage difficult. In this case, I would assume, at the most neutral, that American English referred to the common core usage of Canada and the USA. However, I think the article is specifically referring to US standard. Does anyone have a thought on this? --Gareth Hughes 11:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think "American English" is preferable as it's the term most commonly used - though I wouldn't lose much sleep with "US English" instead.


 * I'm commenting as I disagree with your other point. The term "American" is so widely-used to refer just to the United States of America that it's churlish to suggest it has any other real meaning. Fowler's supports this view too. Kind regards, jguk 12:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed "U.S." to "American", because as far as I know, "American English" is more common than "U.S. English." Also, there is an organization called "U.S. English." But I don't feel strongly about it and won't mind if it is changed back. Maurreen 05:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As a non-US "American" who somewhat resents the usurpation of the name of a whole pair of continents by one country, I agree that "American English" (and AE) are much more common usage than US English. But I disagree with jguk - "American" does have other meanings and other moderately common usages for things other than the US.  Guettarda 16:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

"American", unless the context demands otherwise, is normally taken to mean "of or pertaining to the United States of America". You are right that there are some circumstances where it refers to the American continent as a whole, but this is now a secondary meaning that is clear from context. I'm afraid that if you resent the usurpation of the term "American" to refer to the US, you have somewhat missed the boat. It happened many years ago and there's no reason to suppose anything will change, jguk 16:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean that in a strong, active, present sense. But it has always struck me as rather presumptuous, and it does force you to use clumsy phrases like "peoples of the Americas" when you have convenient, easy phrases like "Europeans", "Africans" and "Asians".  Not calling for or even longing for a change in usage.  It was meant as a disclaimer - what I meant is, I am not one to call for expansion of the term "American" where "US" would be appropriate, and I see no reason not to use "American English".  Guettarda 16:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

"Whereas the majority of English native speakers use American English" eh?

U.S. English qua International English
I probably should have read the discussion before making my changes.... but the anti-American slant of this article was so obvious that I just took the liberty of correcting it. I think it is more NPOV now. A case is made on behalf of those who think that "International English" refers to, or should refer to, non-American English, and then, right after it, the case is made on behalf of those who believe the term refers to, or should refer to, American English. Bene? Hyperborean 08:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article is slightly POV. JackLumber, 13:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work relocating the "crap" :). Seriously: good work. I have some minor disagreements (I live in Europe, and the status of English here is exceedingly complicated and variable) that I'll address on my next break. And thanks for catching Cameron's anti-policy-esque spelling reform mania.... Hyperborean 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact I assumed "most of Continental Europe" because English (the way it is spoken in Britain) is an official language of the European Union. As for Cameron Nedland, that wasn't me, but User:R. S. Shaw. That stuff used to be at American and British English differences, but it was way out of line there. I originally had planned on relocating it to American English (remember when I reverted your edit?) and British English, but it does belong here. I love my language (that is, English, not American English; American English is my dialect) too much to be interested in politics... JackLumber, 14:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The "official" status of English in the EU is relevant only to the use of English in EU documents. Anyway, I made a couple changes that I think make the section on non-U.S. Eng. qua Intern'l English more accurate (though the phrasing is still a bit awkward). The next step would be to get some unbiased empirical data, so that we can remove the "though see ... for a diff. opinion" comments. (Nothing by Cambridge Univ. Press is likely to contain "unbiased empirical data," for the record.) As for love and language: I too love English, but I also love the whole political mess as well! Hyperborean 15:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. (Yes, BTW, I remember your revert -- made sense!)

IELTS
I have removed the following paragraph:


 * The term International English is used in the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), an English-language definition and evaluation system owned, developed and delivered through the partnership of the British Council, IDP Education Australia: IELTS Australia and the University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations. Though concentrating on a kind of English understood almost everywhere, the basic standard is taken to be British English.

(I have no idea who put in that final comment between .)

The adjective "international" does not modify the noun "English". It refers to the fact that the test is given all over the world, and the results are accepted by e.g. universities in many countries. I can find no evidence to suggest that IELTS does now, or has ever, tested a specific variety of English that it calls international. BrainyBabe 14:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

English teaching
I removed the following paragraph:


 * More recently, American English has become predominant as the preferred version of English in many countries that previously either had no preferred form, or preferred some variant of British English. Since World War II, for example, Japan has generally used American English.

I see no proof for this statement. As far as I know most countries around the world teach British English as a second language. Japan and South Korea both teach U.S. English mainly due to the recent influence of the U.S. in the two countries since WW2. Both of these countries taught British English up until that time and indeed people in the two countries which are now about 40 years old or over were taught British English when they went to school. The only other country of note that teaches U.S. English presently is the Philippines. This does not give you the blanket statement given above however making it out that U.S. English is being chosen as the preferred version of English in many countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.29.179.103 (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't know what you're talking about. And "as far as I know" isn't a reason to make a change to a claim in a WP article that has stood for a long time (and, thus, has likely been vetted by experts, or at least knowledgeable people). Please sign your comments, by the way. --Samuel Webster 19:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you don't know what you are talking about. Name other countries than South Korea and Japan which have changed to American english being the preferred version.  The statement implies that 1) countries have changed; 2) American English will be taught at schools due to government policy; 3) offical documents released by the government in English will use American English; and 4) the number of countries which made this change out number those that use British English.  It is far too big a statement to say that.  And a single example is not sufficient.  Of course this stament could be true if there only were two countries which changed because obviously the two out of two is predominant.  The statement needs to be clarified and at the very least some references need to be provided to back it up.  Further, go and read the page on English language learning and teaching where there is even a note that there is more an emphasis on teaching English as an iternational language rather than any particular variant by most teachers now (perfect for this article).  A better statement would be along the lines of:
 * Recently, due to the increased popularity of American movies, music, media and culture around the world, there has a been trend for people to want to learn American English, even in countries which traditionally taught British English.
 * --Kuan (150.29.179.103) 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Recommend deletion
I recommend deletion of this article as inaccurate and based almost wholly on original research. I provided a revised version of the second paragraph of "Historical context" which correct inaccuracies. (For example, English has been in Scotland since the days of Old English was spoken, as Scots developed from the Northumbrian dialect.) I note that the article also confuses 18th century with 19th century.

I also note that the point of my additions was to show that English is, in origin, an ad-hoc almalgam beginning with a 5th Century West Germanic language comparable to Old Frisian, transformed by long years of Viking occupation -- so that even some of the original pronoun forms were dropped for Scandinavian equivalents. Following the Norman Conquest, this language was replaced in official use by French, with the result that a third of the words are from French, while another third are from Latin and Greek. This was not original research. This was cited to Wikipedia using hyperlinks.

Since my contribution was deleted and ignored without even a comment in the discussion section (which is rude), I will return the comment by pointing out that this is appears to be an agenda-driven article, not scholarly, based on original research and riven with errors. It should be deleted as unsalvagable, in part because it appears to be controlled by one who is not willing to correct it.

Bob99 01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I second deletion, put this up on AfD and drop me a link on my talk when you do, be sure to note why you support deletion or people will assume you're deleting because you think the concept is insignificant. There are already many World English articles, and this one has no sources, only dubious 'references'. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I third deletion. This article is unencyclopedic. --Cultural Freedom talk 2008-01-7 04:58 04:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is now up for deletion. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Many Englishes
"Many Englishes"? Is Int. English meant to be some plot to destroy correct use of English? As far as I am aware, this is the English Wikipedia and "Many Englishes" is not a structure in any dialect I know of. Overall this article is very strangely written, and I find it hard to believe someone is actually spending effort on such rubbish. But please, "Many Englishes" is just ridiculous. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am removing the proposed deletion tag on this. I wouldn't necessarily oppose deletion at an AfD, but I don't think that the case for deletion is clear-cut enough for it to go without discussion from the wider community. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was also testing whether there are even any serious editors involved with this article. I am not going to put this up on AfD because I don't have time to put up millions of templates on every page from here to Lagos. But this article is POV and strongly OR at best. +Hexagon1 (t) 14:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Got a script to do it, he-he. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 09:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The phrase "Many Englishes" can be found in plenty of of scholarly publications. http://www.google.com/scholar?q=%22Many+Englishes%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search Those examples even include usage by linguistic scholars who happen to be Englishmen.  Perhaps English is a more flexible language than you've been led to believe?Zebulin (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ... nah. :) English is only too flexible but I maintain that any usage of 'Englishes' will cause me to cringe, and millions of others along with me I think. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, it is not whether individuals will cringe, but rather what is citable, what is standard academic discourse within the field under question. "Englishes" is well established. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah, well done... I had accepted Drifty's comment but indicated I was none too happy about it, I did not argue nor was I following any agenda or striving to a point (that I'm aware of). The entire debate has been over for over a month now. FYI, get with the times, man, that's like so January... +Hexagon1 (t) 13:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Beowulf's language
The article claims "Those dialects came to be known as Englisc (literally "Anglish"), the language today referred to as Anglo-Saxon or Old English (the language of Beowulf)." While it may have been the language of the poem Beowulf, it probably was not the language of the person Beowulf. I suggest it must be the poem that is meant as the person probably spoke Old Norse, being the king of the Geats. Please edit.
 * Done. Why not be bold and edit yourself if you see something wrong? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)