Talk:North American English

Weird article

The article seams to be written by some kind of English - American nationalist. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what this comment means. An English American would be nationalistic towards which country - UK, England or USA? Or do you mean an English-speaking American? I don't see any nationalism of any sort in the article. Rmhermen (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Aleksandr meant to say this article seemed to be written by a North American chauvinist who views American and Canadian English as one and the same. I DON'T think this is true of the first paragraph which is well written, well sourced and recognizes differences between the two countries. However it DOES seems to be true of the original version of the second paragraph which is completely unsourced, somewhat Anglophobic and/or American chauvinistic in tone, and partially contradicts ideas about linguistic diversity discussed in first paragraph. The second paragraph claims that Canadian preference for certain American words is a result of consciously-driven and universally agreed-to personal preference (gasoline over petrol etc). This flies against the face of general linguistic convention that dialect is a matter of social conditioning by which a speaker from outside a country or region picks up local or national words by a process of mental osmosis or even as a result of direct pressure from locals.

My SOURCE for this claim that contradicts much of the original para. 2, is an internet article called "FAQ's on Linguistics and Bad Linquistics". It can be easily googled by anyone who wants to verify my position on this. If I have to formally cite this article to defend my challenge to the original UNSOURCED paragraph 2, I will attempt to do so, but my technical skills for doing inline citations of the type found in the well written paragraph 1 are very rustly, so it may take a few days. Meanwhile I can say that when a British speaker arrives in Canada, he/she can be subject to extreme peer pressure to adopt the aforementioned "Americanisms" to gain social acceptance among Canadians who are very bullish about American dialect. Certain British words have disappeared from Canadian English due to this conformity that's often imposed on Canadians by the mass media and by North American chauvunists. Canadians who immigrate from non-Commonwealth or non-English speaking nations are particularly prone to picking up American words and slang because they have no strong British traditions to fall back on. But again, I would argue that these are processes of coersion and social conditioning imposed by the mass media and its sycophants. Since the original paragraph 2 is completely unsourced, it is open to challenge under current Wikipedia policy, and will be challenged from time to time until it is properly sourced. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 11:08, 08 January 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

Canadian spellings are primarily based on British usage

I don't believe this is true. Our spellings correspond to both US and British usage, but reading the latter would probably feel the most foreign to us (citing Joe Clark's OOMN, p 31). If anything, general terms might be based on pre-Webster (North) American spelling. —Michael Z. 2012-03-12 00:38 z

The whole thing is written from a US standpoint. Petrol and gasoline are different because there were derived from the tradmarked names of petroleum spirit. Having worked with American and Canadian Wikipedia editors I can say that the differences in US, Canadian and UK English are so small that the are not worth mentioning. More variety occurs within each country. The biggest difference is the use of present perfect and simple past tenses. Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 22:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? Just off the top of my head: armour, colour, centre, theatre, realise, defence... all of these words are the spelt the same in the UK and Canada, and different in the US. 199.213.200.6 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Davyd

... and d'you know, Davyd, that's about the sum total of the difference. I've known Americans, I've visited America. The English spoken in Britain and America is SO similar, that the most anyone can come up with as a difference are the occasional extra u, or the present perfect/simple past difference. In actual fact, there are more differences within the British Isles than there are between accepted spoken and written English between the US and Britain. What really strikes me is that from the hundreds of exchanges I've had with North American Wikipedia editors, the difference in the English we used was not an issue, I would say to the point of being non-existent. People speaking Welsh are not completely at home with speaking to some one from the south of Wales if they are from the north, because words have different meanings. German speakers from different parts of Germany have to resort to the 'official' High German, similarly Dutch speakers in different parts of the Netherlands have to resort to a similarly nationally recognised version. North American English is pretty similar throughout the whole of the US and Canada - the accent shift is way less than within the rest of the English speaking world. Best wishes Francis Hannaway (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

NAE = AmE?

In this edit, User:Kwamikagami has made the claim that the term "American English" is the same as "North American English". The user has also proposed moving American English to United States English on the basis of this claim at Talk:American English#Requested move 29 May 2015. The source given by the user is the The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, but they did not cite a page number.

After some searching on Google, I was able to find a text of part of the volume [ here]. This appears to be the relevant paragraph:

"The regional dialects of Standard English in the world today can be divided into two large families with regional and historical affinities. One contains standard edu-cated Southern British English, henceforth abbreviated BrE, together with a variety of related dialects, including most of the varieties of English in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and most other places in the British Commonwealth. The second dialect family we will refer to as American English, henceforth AmE - it contains the dialects of the United States, Canada, and associated territories, from Hawaii and Alaska to eastern Canada." (Emphasis added.)

This paragraph appears to be the basis for the user's proposed renaming of the current American English article, and presumably for proposing to redirect that page here, or move this page there, at some later point. If so, it is weak evidence indeed. The key phrase, "The second dialect family we will refer to as American English", clearly indicates that this is merely a preference of the writers, or at least a convenient label for the various dialects in the US and Canada. It is interesting that they did not chose to label the group as "North American English", perhaps because North America generally includes the Caribbean, where there are several English-speaking islands.

On this basis, I propose that the phrase "American English" and the citation be removed from the Lead of the article. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Who gets to decide what a phrase means? The CGEL is the grammar of the English language. Whether it's because US English and Canadian English are essentially the same (there's no isogloss at the border), and it would be biased to give one of them priority, or because they use the word "American" in its international sense, as in American Spanish (which some users here have insisted refers to Spanish in the United States), they are a notable source for the term. We here at WP are also supposed to hold a universal rather than provincial POV in our articles. Also, they are treating American English as a linguistic concept, which should take priority with linguistic articles. English in the US (and for that matter English in Canada) is not a linguistic concept, but a geographic one. — kwami (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Meaning, at least for WP, is defined by usage a majority of reliable sources. One single source using a phrase as a convenient label can't define usage for the whole language. Ironically, the book itself apparently approaches grammar from a descriptive viewpoint, while you're trying to make its usage af a term prescriptive. - BilCat (talk)

Here's another: [1], with broad and narrow definitions of "American English". Norquist is a professor of English at a US university, BTW. — kwami (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Further, it seems to me that they aren't using "American" in it's "international" (pan-American) sense, as they're not lumping in the Carribean and other pan-American varieties of English. Rather, they're treatingng Canadian English as a subset of the US-American variety English. - BilCat (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The key phrase in your second source is "More narrowly (and more commonly), the varieties of English used in the U.S." (Emphasis mine). That definitely supports American English being the title for the article about the variety of English spoken in the US. - BilCat (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Newfoundland English?

What about Newfie? Why isn't it on the map? Newfoundland is in North America, right? Luke (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Specifically even in the US–Canada dyad, yes (North America also includes Bermuda and the Caribbean, as pointed out below). You'd have to ask Labov that, because as the caption indicates, the map comes from his book. However, considering that the Atlas of North American English treats "all the major urbanized regional dialects of the English language spoken in the United States and Canada", and Newfie isn't a major urbanised dialect, it's not surprising that it should have been omitted. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is incorrectly named

As currently written this article is entirely about English in the United States and Canada. It ignores most of the countries in North America. These are the other countries and territories on the continent that speak a form of English. They are in the Caribbean or Central America which are parts of North America forgotten by those in the rest of the continent:

• Anguilla (British territory)
• Antigua and Barbuda
• Bahamas
• Barbados
• Bermuda (British territory)
• Belize
• British Virgin Islands (British territory)
• Cayman Islands (British territory)
• Dominica
• Grenada
• Jamaica
• Montserrat (British territory)
• Panama (English spoken fluently by 15% of the population)
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saint Lucia
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Turks and Caicos Islands (British territory)

North America is not synonymous with Canada and the US. The incorrect use of "North America" is especially common among Canadians and since the 1990s has increasingly become co-opted by Americans. It should be also noted that each of these locations has its own form of English. No one would confuse Jamaican English with US or Canadian, for example.

Rondo66 (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If "North American English" is the term used in reliable published sources for the English variants of the United States and Canada, then that is what Wikipedia should use. Yes, I understand that, technically, the continent of North America includes the Carribean, but in common usage it often does not, especially in contexts not strictly about continental geography, such as linguistics. In addition, there already exist a separate article about Caribbean English, which, oddly enough, includes Liberian English. I have no issue with adding a one-sentence note about the Caribbean being classed on its own, but we don't need to list every Caribbean country, nor excellent and this article to cover those variants. - BilCat (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to understand that the Caribbean is part of the North American continent I would propose merging the "Caribbean English" article with the "North American English" article. To ignore most of the countries in North America in an article on North American English is clearly intended to be exclusionary.

The current popular use of "North America" reflects a strong Canadian and to lesser extent U.S. bias. It's also interesting to see how this bias (or segregation) is mostly along racial lines. To Canadians "North America" is mostly caucasian, while "Caribbean" is mostly black. Of course the rest of North America speaks Spanish, so it has no real importance to Canadians either.

If you must segregate the articles on North American English they should be done along national lines, i.e. Canadian English, U.S. English, Jamaican English, etc. There are many forms of U.S. English that can't be found in Canada, and vice versa, so having one article on U.S. and Canadian English really makes no sense at all.70.199.155.97 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles already exist for American English and Canadian English, and for each individual Caribbean English-speaking nation. These articles (NA, Carib) deal with the variants as a whole that share a common linguistic history, which is different for each region. That fact that you note they are divided from each other on mostly racial lines is a product of history, and lumping them together simply to avoid that is a bad idea, especially if reliable sources don't lump them together. - BilCat (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This article should be renamed "Canadian and U.S. English" or "U.S. and Canadian English" because it is about English in a 60% subset of North America, not about English in North America in general. Did you know that there are more people in the Caribbean than in all of Canada? Do all of your reliable "North American" sources come from Canada/U.S. and reflect that particular bias?Rondo66 (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

So what? There are more people in the US than in the rest of North America (including Central America and the Caribbean) combined. Now that we've got the irrelevant trivia out of the way.... As of this point, only you and the IP have a problem with this term. If it's a genuine bias issue, you should be able to find reliable published sources from somewhere that deal with the name choice. Once you've presented those, the discussion can move forward constructively. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Technically, the article should be named Northern American English, as Northern America is precisely the name of the region consisting of Canada and the US (plus Bermuda and Saint Pierre and Miquelon off the mainland, but their size is negligible in comparison), but unfortunately that term has already a different meaning, and the term North American English is conventional for the English predominantly spoken in Northern America. The reason being, of course, that with the exception of Belize and a couple of mostly small island countries, English is the dominant language only in Canada and US, while there are no national varieties such as "Mexican English" that would be comparable to Canadian English or American English (the conventional name of US English), since in the countries in the region, generally either British English or US English is used; and as for Caribbean English dialects, they do not have standard forms, so they are typically overlooked in this context. But really, the actual reason is probably that people, especially those who are native English speakers, generally (for the most part) do not think of the Caribbean as part of North America (but part of Middle America), and that the term "North America" typically makes people think of Northern America. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the term "Northern American English" has been coined to mean English in the Northern United States. I really think that this section developed as the result of a rant. When historians examine the ancient history of North America, traditionally, North America refers to Canada, the continental USA, and Alaska, and the northern part of Mexico. Mesoamerica refers to the southern part of Mexico and Central America. And South America remains intact with the modern political boundaries. I don't know with certainty about the Caribbean Islands, but I can assume that they would either be based into Mesoamerica or they would be their own category.LakeKayak (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox language, "Region" is the "geographic region in which it is mainly spoken". The closest article WP has for the geographic region that includes the US and Canada is "Northern America". That article also includes Bermuda, Greenland, and Saint-Pierre and Miquelon in the region, but all have relatively small populations. If we want to link to a geographic article in that parameter, then "Northern America" is the best one. Alternatively, we could just list Canada and the United States, but technically those are nations, not geographic regions. - BilCat (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this is an old section that could be archived. The problem is that sometimes linguistic boundaries don't always match geographical or cultural boundaries. A good example is "Mid-Atlantic American English" which does not encompass all of the Mid-Atlantic geographical region. It seems that the same issue arose here. Simply put, North American English does not encompass the entire geographical region North America. As the term North American English was used by Labov et al., I can justify that using North American English to mean English used in America and Canada is not original research. As Rondo66 hasn't been contributing in a while, it can assumed we won't be able to get his consensus anytime soon. However, BilCat, do you think we could archive the section?LakeKayak (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is this article separated from North American regional phonology?

This article seems to have repeated content from North American regional phonology. Could someone explain why this is a separate article? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Standard Canadian English on the map

The map shows Standard Canadian English being spoken in a broad swath of southern Québec. Not sure about that... 2602:306:CFEA:170:1D6A:396:A4:C8ED (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Pan-American English" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pan-American English has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 2 § Pan-American English until a consensus is reached. --MikutoH ^talk! 21:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Confusing word

What does the word "generalized" mean in the first sentence? HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

All "dialects" are actually internally heterogeneous umbrellas or generalizations lumping together many different ways people talk by focusing only on certain commonalities. In this case, the label NAE is "the most generalized" label to cover English in both the USA and Canada. Wolfdog (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but that still doesn't tell me what the word "generalized" means in the first sentence. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you be more specific about what your question/confusion is exactly. Perhaps you can provide more than one possibility for how you might interpret this word. That will help me to determine why it feels ambiguous to you. Wolfdog (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Wolfdog - Ambiguity isn't the issue. For starters, "generalized" is a verb. It seems to be used in the article as an adjective. So I have no idea what meaning it's supposed to have there. HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but that still doesn't tell me what your confusion is. All English verbs are able to take on an adjective form known as a participle. Terrorize is a verb, but it becomes an adjective/participle in the phrase "a ruthlessly terrorized village". Again, I asked for some possible interpretations so I might guide you or see where the word could generally confuse readers. Are you just looking for a dictionary definition? It here means the variety of English "given a most general form" or "given general applicability" while encompassing two nations, as defined for example at Merriam-Webster. Wolfdog (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, but surely a better word could be found. HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

So are you confused by the intended meaning or do you understand it but just find the word imperfect? Overarching or most all-encompassing? Sometimes simply rewording the sentence is better than finding a hypothetical perfect word, like "North American English encompasses the English language as spoken in both the United States and Canada". Wolfdog (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That's much better. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)