Talk:International English

Outside view

I confess that I had seen this disagreement earlier but had hoped to stay out of it because my involvement has some possibility of damaging my relationship with either of you. But I hope things will work out in a way satisfactory to all of us. I can't review everything yet, but I hope what I can do now will be a good start. Maurreen 18:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Analogies

"International English" is somewhat analogous to "ghost" or "array".

Regardless of whether ghosts exist, there is a commonly understood concept of "ghost". Regardless of whether "International English" exists, there is a concept (or two or three) of "International English" that is understood by a number of people, and that understanding has been documented (although the documents may be lacking).

An "array" is essentially an "assemblage". But many people use the word to mean "variety". I say that usage is incorrect, and I fix it when I can.

Jallan is not saying that "International English" actually means "British English". At least roughly speaking, Jallan is saying that some people use it to mean the same thing. As far as I can tell, that statement is both true and verifiable. Maurreen 18:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Original research"

Whether Jallan's work is original research I will not address now. I can see how that question is debatable. But, as far as I can tell, user:Jallan/International English does not meet the criteria as outlined at Wikipedia: No original research#What is research and what is not, which says: "A wikipedia entry (including a part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas."

Between the references Jallan has provided and use of the expression "International English" elsewhere in Wikipedia, my view is that Jallan is not proposing anything new.

It could be argued that Jallan is "defining new terms". But I see that as a weak argument, in that Jallan is reporting definition by others. One of the better examples is this:

Bible Society: Machine Assisted Translations: Anglicisations ("The standard English of India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Commonwealth and some other countries where English is used follows the conventions of British English. It is often therefore called International English to distinguish it from American English.") Maurreen 18:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- The use of a single website to justify a concept is a bit of a stretch, and hardly counts as an authoritative source; I've seen a website which argues that Jesus Christ was philosophically a Klingon Warrior. I was involved in this 'International English" argument some years back, and at the core of the dispute was that the issue that apart from the fact that Microsoft lists "International English" as their "Other" English option in some of their software, this is not a term with any real validity. If you are using it to mean "English which is not American" then the term is appallingly americocentric. If you are using it to mean "English as a lingua franca of modern global communication" then the term "Global English" is generally used for this purpose. An article named "English as a Global Language" is probably far more relevant for the text as it stands right now, and it could certainly mention that "people have suggested the terms "International English" and "Global English" to describe this subject" or something to that effect. But to imply that there is a formally recognised thing as "International English" is plainly misleading.Manning 14:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) (AKA MMGB)

Authoritative references

I think all of us involved in this discussion would prefer more authoritative references. But at least in the abstract, I disagree with excluding less-than-ideal sources when those are the best that can be found. In my view, that makes the perfect the enemy of the good.

On the other hand, I think it would be worthwhile to point out in some appropriate way that there is a lack of better sources. The easiest way to do this might be: "'International English' is not listed or defined in the following dictionaries: blah, blah, and blah." Maurreen 18:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Maurreen, Just a couple of points: (1) I don't believe anyone was insisting on academic sources for every point, but it's important to point out, if it's true, that there is no such thing as an "international English" style manual, or an "international English" dictionary; or if there are such things, they should be used as references; (2) You say: "International English" . . . is understood by a number of people, and that understanding has been documented . . " But understood by whom? Documented where? Again, this is just my plea for references; (3) "[S]ome people use [international English] to mean [British English]." Who are these "some people," and where is this use documented? It isn't enough to produce the website of a Harry Potter fan, particularly when the academic viewpoint is that global English (a term linguists have used to refer to the rapid evolution of the language) has detached itself entirely from its origins, and that no nation can take ownership of it; yet that inherent contradiction in the article wasn't even acknowledged.

My only interest is that the article doesn't contradict itself, and that claims be properly referenced to reputable sources, but by "reputable," I don't necessarily mean "academic." As you say, the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. In case it helps, the last edit I thought was fine is here, November 30, by Stevertigo. There are a couple of claims in there that would benefit from references, but basically I'd have no problem with you (or anyone) inserting that material, and then building up from there, if no one else objects.

By the way, Maurreen, the discussion as to whether this is a legitimate subject for Wikipedia go back to 2001 if you read the archives. See below for example. Slim 04:18, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

The comments from 2001 (by MMGB and myself) that you put here (and which I have removed) were referring to a completely different article than the present one. You cannot use our opinions on that article to justify your own opinions on the current article. I'm pretty sure I never said that International English isn't a legitimate subject for Wikipedia. I merely considered it unnecessary, and objected to the nonsense that a certain Wikipedian was filling the article with. The article that I really objected to is long since gone - the wiki didn't keep a permanent record of all old versions in those days, and the page history only shows what it looked like after I had chopped the worst of the garbage from it. --Zundark 11:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zundark, it's regarded as very poor Wikiquette to delete other people's edits from Talk pages, so please leave the above alone. I've deleted yours as I left that in only to show the date. What matters about the quote above is not the version it was referring to, but that it says: "I've been researching this for weeks . . . All my references provide only two valid meanings for it: as a term used in the computer industry, and as a reference to "English as a utility language for international communication." Slim 11:33, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Pasting in other people's comments out of context is very poor Wikiquette. I merely undid it, and I have undone it again. If you want to replace it, please ask MMGB's permission first. The comment is on the archive page anyway, so there is no need to repeat it here. --Zundark 12:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since when did we have to ask permission to copy/paste people's comments? Under the GDFL everything you and I wrote all those years ago is fair game. And besides, even though the original article is gone, I think my original comments which Slim copied are still relevant. You are free to disagree with Slim's actions, but to delete the comments Slim copied was poor form. Let others decide if the comments are or are not in context and/or relevant. Manning 14:48, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that the GFDL requires Slim to ask your permission, only that I would in that case drop my objection. The GFDL certainly allows Slim to insert your comments, and it allows me to revert if I consider the insertion misleading. For what it's worth, I too consider that your comments of November 2001 are still relevant, except perhaps for the remark that "this article simply has to go". Anyway, I'm glad to see that you are taking an interest in this article - it gives me more reason to believe that it will turn out well. I'm keeping out of it this time around. --Zundark 19:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, Zundark, article Talk pages are not supposed to have comments deleted from them, except in cases of vandalism. Slim 05:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Request

Just in case anything goes badly … if either of you ever thinks what I'm doing here is not helping, please let me know. Maurreen 08:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Codification

I agree with the general sentiment here: "It's important to point out, if it's true, that there is no such thing as an "international English" style manual, or an "international English" dictionary."

But I often disagree with using absolutes. We can't know with any certainty that there is no such thing as an "international English" style manual, or an "international English" dictionary."

From Web searching, it appears that there are some "International English" reference books. From cursory knowledge, it also appears (and only appears, I don't state this definitively at all) that those do not codify any particular variety. Maurreen 08:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Usages

I also agree with this sentiment expressed earlier by Jeff Q:

The statement that "International English" is frequently assumed to mean "British English" is no doubt accurate, and it's important to note that this happens. However, it is also true to say that "its" is frequently mistaken for "it's", "affect" and "effect" are commonly confused, and millions of people couldn't identify where the U.S., Britain, Australia, or Canada are on a map without colors and labels (and frequently not even then). It's not so much a question of what is common, but what is correct. If there are no language authorities who are willing to state that International English is essentially British English, then that should strongly suggest that this usage is just plain wrong. It would be acceptable, however, if this is the case, to mention this usage and point out that it's misleading or possibly incorrect.

And this: "If there are conflicting meanings (which is obviously the case), they should all be listed." Maurreen 08:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contrast with American English

Maybe the article could say something along the lines of this: "The expression 'International English' is sometimes used in contrast to 'American English'." Maurreen 08:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By who? I'm sorry, but the above is americocentrism of the worst kind. Why not define "foreigners" as "people who don't live in the USA"? We all understand that Americans have no grasp of the outside world - we don't need the 'pedia to remind us. Manning 15:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

To answer Manning's question "By who?", here is one example, from Zoney, an Irishman, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes): "By International English of course, I mean specifically non-US."

In my view, the rest of Manning's comments immediately above are at best irrelevant. They do nothing toward improving the article. Maurreen 19:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)\

Maurreen, as you know, Wikipedia articles can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources, and especially can't use other editors' comments as sources. Can you find an external, authoritative source that says or implies "International English is sometimes used in contrast to American English"? Slim 05:59, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

My answer was more in response to Manning's statement of Americocentrism than anything else. Maurreen 06:08, 3 Jan 2005 (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 [1] 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. — 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 Wikipedia: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. ☺ — 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 Phillipines, 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 Wikipedia: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:

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.
Jallan has put a serious amount of work into the article. It's possible that any improvements Gareth might make could resolve any disagreements.
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! ☺ 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 "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 — 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 [2] "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 –consciously or unconsciously— 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.

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#International English - work in progress. 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 International English/revision. 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 International English/revision 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 Interantional English/revision now. I am bad: creating all these pages! Gareth Hughes 11:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)