Do the Americans speak English better than the British?

***As far as lessons about literature go; Chaucer/Shakespeare etc.. ; I believe only a person that has studied the works of the gentlemen extensively (almost scientifically) is entitled to teach about them***

Of course.....I agree. Unless you're familiar with the style of English in the works of both Geoffrey Chaucer and Will Shakespeare, and any other writers of the periods (eg William Langland), and later, then comprehension is virtually impossible. Teaching Chaucer, Langland, Shakespeare, and onwards through time down to the great Victorian writers requires the necessary skills of making the texts understandable to students of today who would otherwise regard them as being written in a foreign Language, more or less.

The teaching of English is just as complex as is the teaching of any other subject and covers the whole gamut from the basics to the very advanced topics mentioned in the post(s) above. Again, the origin of the teacher is of no consequence provided that s/he has all the required knowledge and skills.....knows the entire subject matter inside out, back to front and upside down. Being British certainly does not entitle you to call yourself a "good English teacher". But being British (or much accurately, a native English speaker from whichever English speaking country) certainly gives you a very clear advantage, naturally, as we grow up with the Language as soon as we discard our dummies and graduate from the "koochy-koo" stage of development.

Back to the basics of English.....it's true that many foreigners here in the UK do indeed speak more "correct" English than do many native born Brits, no matter in which part of the UK - ie without all the idioms and sloppy speech patterns which are widespread. Depending on social background etc. many young people in the elementary or secondary schools of the UK don't have an acceptable level of English speech and vocabulary, and this is made worse by an influx of immigrants from outside of Europe, with a fair number of parents with hardly any knowledge of English in the first place.

Many of the people coming in from countries such as Poland (EU) well qualified in the study of the English Language, are totally fluent, and so long as they meet the requirements of the UK education authorities, are able to teach in UK schools. So Polish people who are fluent in English, speak and write it to a very high standard, are in a position to teach British (mainly English as far as I can ascertain) schoolchildren how to do the same - to speak and write English correctly.

I'm not sure whether this is happening back home in Scotland or not but I'll find out when I have the time.

Ali, Damian, I entirely agree with you.

It's a downright false and, unfortunately, a very common belief that the fact of being a native speaker of a certain language automatically enables and entitles you to become an efficient language teacher. I know many people who seriously believe in that and it's almost impossible to convince them that it's only a myth.

Language pedagogy (teaching a language as a foreign language) is an academic discipline. You have to work hard to learn the nuts and bolts of the profession. Some say that qualification isn't important: you can become an excellent teacher without having a degree. OK, there are people with the inborn ability/talent to teach, who have the skills/characteristics etc. (which are essential for a good teacher) "genetically encoded". But this inborn talent is only a tiny little part of the complex of traits a good teacher must have. Of course, there are some skills that can't be taught in an institutionalised form; you either possess or lack them. But most skills/techniques CAN and MUST be learnt.

It's not the importance of the qualification itself I wanted to emphasise. What I want to say is that qualification doesn't necessarily make you a good and efficient teacher, but it's a great advantage to have one.

Back to the original topic, just to let you see the other side the same coin: there are many native English teachers in Eastern/Central Europe.
There was a huge influx of these teachers around 1989/1990 and in the following years. This was a significant date in the history of that part of Europe. These years brought about a change, namely the decline and fall of the "ancien régime". The socialist empire collapsed, and democratic states were created. The borders were opened, everyone was free to emigrate or immigrate. At that time, many English teachers came from the US and the UK to teach at universities. In fact, not all of them were teachers. Some of them were highly qualified, good and efficient teachers, but others were rather upsetting, neither having the necessary qualifications nor the ability or ambition to teach. Fortunately, the number of teachers belonging to the latter group seems to have decreased recently...

Well, let alone the Mormon missionaries from the US teaching English for free, and of course, the lessons have got nothing to do with religion... At least to claim so...

Correction:

to claim so=they claim so

Mormons in Europe teaching English? That's a new one on me. Not that I keep up with their doings.

<<Mormons in Europe teaching English? That's a new one on me. Not that I keep up with their doings.>>

You may find it funny, but that's absolutely true! They keep walking around the streets and accosting passers-by. In non-English speaking countries, they usually have an interpreter around. It's "nice" to see them in traditionally Roman Catholic countries... It's needless to say that they hardly ever succeed in converting people.

Since this "Please-stop-for-a-second-and-let-me-convince-you-that-you-should-find-God's-real-path" sort of attempt usually fail, they advertise themselves in newspapers/magazines, like this:

"English language courses with Mormon missionaries from the United States. Classes in groups, for free. The lessons have nothing to do with religion." Yes, and I'm a Dutchman (or a Dutchwoman :-)).

Believe it or not, many young people go totally mad about it. The word "American" is sort of a magic spell over here, no matter who this person (from the US) really is.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, prosetylizing Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses aren't too popular over here, either. At least we've managed to corral most of the former in Utah .. and most of the JW's in my area speak only Spanish, so they're easy to escape from. ("No, lo siento -- no hablo espanol.")

Ali : « As far as lessons about literature go; Chaucer/Shakespeare etc.. ; I believe only a person that has studied the works of the gentlemen extensively (almost scientifically) is entitled to teach about them; This could be a polish/greek whatever teacher.. In this case, I don't think it matters what the origin of the teacher is.. As long as he/she is competent.. ; »

Absolument ! Surtout dans le cas de Chaucer dont les écrits poétiques ou en prose sont fortement imprégnés de... français — qu'il devait maîtriser fort honorablement à en juger par sa vie et ses œuvres.

Désolé : le « Guest » au-dessus, c'est moi.

<<Well, if it makes you feel any better, prosetylizing Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses aren't too popular over here, either. At least we've managed to corral most of the former in Utah .. and most of the JW's in my area speak only Spanish, so they're easy to escape from. ("No, lo siento -- no hablo espanol.")>>

Now, JW's seem to be a lot more successful in my area... I used to have some classmates whose whole family has become JW. That was a bit strange in a Christian community (as far as the vast majority is concerned), especially around Christmas time. We had to be extremely careful not to wish them a merry Christmas. And what's more, they don't celebrate anything, so we couldn't wish them a happy birthsday, either. Since most of them were newly converted, it was hard for the children in particular to accept that there were no more celebrations, no more birthday parties, no more Santa Claus, no more presents, no more cakes etc.

Back to the missionaries, on my way home I've just bumped into some Krishna followers. They gave me a leaflet, told me that they were on a three months' pilgrimage. They express their protest against drugs, alcohol and cigarettes that way. They also told me that the whole world, especially Europe was a hotbed of immorality, and therefore we all lived in horror, filth and squalour (sic!). Their aim is to fight against it (namely alcohol, drugs and smoking) and that makes them walk the region through in three months. (Such a long walk, folks... You will inhale the exhaust fumes, you'll be tired and you'll certainly need some uppers to survive, and so will your attempt fail :-))
And it is easy to find out how the story ended: "We will make the world better, so we need your financial support..."

The only Krishna I ever met was from, get this: Croatia. In a New Mexico parking lot, of all places...

<<The only Krishna I ever met was from, get this: Croatia. In a New Mexico parking lot, of all places... >>

Was s/he a missionary?

I would like to point out that when I started this thread, what I really meant was:

Do the Americans speak English more correctly according to what the Brits would still consider correct English, as far as the grammatical structure of the language is concerned, but don't always adhere to themselves.

I wasn't talking about the vocabulary that the Americans now use and the Brits don't, nor changes in grammar that have become specifically American, such as the the use of 'gotten, dove, fit etc or the greater use of the simple past, for example.

I meant things like using the subjunctive and 'whom', which in the UK, as far as I am concerned, would still be considered ultimately correct, but we are very likely to neglect, yet the Americans, from what I hear, are more likely to maintain.

I know the thread has gone off on many tangents since then, but I just wanted to make that clear, so that people didn't think I was simply comparing American English to British English.

<<The only Krishna I ever met was from, get this: Croatia. In a New Mexico parking lot, of all places... >>

Was s/he a missionary?

I guess he was. He didn't get any money off me, though!





I meant things like using the subjunctive and 'whom', which in the UK, as far as I am concerned, would still be considered ultimately correct, but we are very likely to neglect, yet the Americans, from what I hear, are more likely to maintain.

I generally think of "whom" as being used more by Brits, actually. You don't hear it much here, unless people are trying to be very formal.

When I was in England, I didn't notice any major differences in grammatical correctness.

<<I generally think of "whom" as being used more by Brits, actually. You don't hear it much here, unless people are trying to be very formal.>>

"Whom" is the more formal and "correct" one (at least in British English) but there is a tendency to replace it with "who" in the spoken language.