Do the Americans speak English better than the British?

I am British, and I have sometimes heard it claimed that the Americans don't speak English as well as we do.

However it seems to me from watching American TV, films etc, that actually they often speak it better, or at least more grammatically correctly. Of course you can argue that usage dictates what is correct, but I have noticed for example that they are more likely to use 'whom' i.e. 'for whom' and not 'who for'. Of course this is not always the case, but I hardly ever hear 'whom' in British English.

I would also argue that their greater tendency to use the subjunctive (much debated here already I know), is a more traditionally correct usage of the language.

Obviously there still appears to be a lot of the same bad grammar that is found in BE, like 'I ain't, I don't want nothing' etc. But I do think it is unfair to claim that they don't speak English as well as us.

I'm guessing Americans might be more likely to agree with me here than Brits lol

I'm british too and I've noticed that as well. Both from watching movies and TV programmes and from talking to Americans on camp.

Oh good, it's not just me then lol

<<However it seems to me from watching American TV, films etc, that actually they often speak it better, or at least more grammatically correctly. Of course you can argue that usage dictates what is correct, but I have noticed for example that they are more likely to use 'whom' i.e. 'for whom' and not 'who for'. Of course this is not always the case, but I hardly ever hear 'whom' in British English. >>

Well there's no objective way to say that one group of speakers of a certain dialect speaks "better" than another group does of a language. All native speakers of a language do just fine. Yes, American English does retain some features in English which are historically conservative (and spoken American English does have some everyday forms which are nowadays considered archaic in the UK or only used in the written language in British English) but that does not make American English speakers more "correct" speakers of English.

Also, it's important to note that both American English and British English have evolved from a common ancestor and both have remained conservative and innovative in different ways. Even if being historically conservative were a way to determine "correctness" in a language it'd be hard to tell anyway. It's not really a valid question as far as linguistics goes.

<<Obviously there still appears to be a lot of the same bad grammar that is found in BE, like 'I ain't, I don't want nothing' etc.>>

That's not "bad grammar" (wherever it's said) even tho it may be socially stigmatized. Those are perfectly valid forms which actually go back to Old English and have been used natively in English for over a millennium. For instance "ain't" is the result of the historical contraction of "am" and "not" much like "will" and "not" produced "won't" or "do" and "not" produced "don't." It is by sheer random courses of events that "ain't" has come to be stigmatized but historically it is no different from those other contractions. Same thing with double negatives. Double negatives have always been around in English and even in Elizabethan times were considered standard. It's only in recent centuries that double negatives have come to be stigmatized but they've always been around, too. In fact, if you look cross-linguistically you'll find most languages have double negatives and do just fine.

Kirk

Yes, I realise it cannot strictly be claimed that one usage is correct and another not, as I pointed out. But I suppose, especially in the case of 'whom', we were taught in English at school that this should ideally still be used.

I am a bit curious about the following statement:

For instance "ain't" is the result of the historical contraction of "am" and "not" much like "will" and "not" produced "won't" or "do" and "not" produced "don't."

While I don't doubt this is correct, if 'ain't' is the historical contraction of 'am' and 'not', does this mean it can also be the valid contraction of 'is' and 'not' and 'are' and 'not'?

Also, I know that other languages, such as Spanish employ the double negative. I do find it hard to understand the logic of this though.

I suppose I meant the Americans tend to conform more to what we British might still consider correct English, but no longer tend to use.

"Also, I know that other languages, such as Spanish employ the double negative. I do find it hard to understand the logic of this though."

French uses the so-called "double negative"; in fact, it's considered colloquial to use a single negative (that's to say, dropping the "ne" particle) - though quite common.

So effectively, French "logic" runs counter to English "logic":

Where "correct" English requires a single negative, "correct" French requires a double one.

Where "slang" English uses a double negative, "slang" French uses a single one.

The point?

That it has nothing to do with "logic." Both languages are equally "logical." They simply use different grammatical mechanisms to communicate ideas.

And the answer to the question posed in this thread is:

No, the Americans do not speak English better than the British.

But then, nor do the British speak English any better than the Americans.

D6266KR

Thanks for the reply.

What I mean about the logic of the double negative, is that I don't understand how it doesn't cancel itself out, in any language. For example, if you said in English, for example 'I don't want no charity', the way you said it could convey that you don't want any charity. But surely, if you just read the words, they mean 'I don't want to not have any charity, I do indeed want to have some charity'.

This is what I find hard to comprehend as logical.

Aquatar:

You're making a quintessential mistake in your approach to logic in language: you're focussing on the "logic" of individual grammatical mechanisms* rather than the "logic" of the whole communication.

All languages are "logical" in the sense that they all allow their speakers to communicate ideas with one another.

If they didn't, they'd be entirely useless and quickly abandoned.

To put it a bit simplistically, imagine a statement in any given language in which the grammar mechanisms represent a mathematical equation resulting in the communication of the sum 2:

Language A: 1 + 2 - 1 = 2

Language B: 1 - 3 + 4 = 2

Language C: 3 + 1 - 2 = 2

Three different languages, three different ways to achieve the sum of 2. No equation more or less logical than any other.

* Though a double negative often does exactly what adding two negatives together in arithmetic does: it makes a bigger negative.

A brawny Italian-American defendant from New Jersey who tells the court "I ain't sayin' nothin'" isn't cleverly telling us "I'm going to say something."

He's quite emphatically telling us he's not going to say anything and leaving us in no doubt about it.

That's pretty logical.

Of course, there are many more aspects involved in communication than just grammar. The way something is said, the usage we are used to etc. But I can't agree the example of the Italian American is particularly logical, it's simply what we have learned to understand what someone who says that in such a context means.

By the way I thought I learnt in Maths that two negatives made a positive, but my school days are far behind me, and Maths was always my weakest subject ;)

Anyways, I have to accept that some languages choose to use this double negative. Still, it must be a bit confusing for a learner of English, that officially it shouldn't be used, but sometimes it is.

<<What I mean about the logic of the double negative, is that I don't understand how it doesn't cancel itself out, in any language. For example, if you said in English, for example 'I don't want no charity', the way you said it could convey that you don't want any charity. But surely, if you just read the words, they mean 'I don't want to not have any charity, I do indeed want to have some charity'.

This is what I find hard to comprehend as logical.>>

Well, one thing to remember is that language is not mathematics :) There are plenty of things language does that at first glance might not seem "logical" (from a mathematical perspective) but language still gets by just fine. As for the double negative thing, as I said before, cross-linguistically it's actually much more common for languages to have double negatives than for them to not have them. Despite in "Standard English" where double negatives have been more recently suppressed they still live on in plenty of native speakers' idiolects/dialects around the English-speaking world and they've always been there. I don't think anyone today would dare criticize Chaucer for using double, triple, and even the quadruple negatives which have been around in English forever and accuse his writing of being "illogical":

"Ther nas no man no wher so vertuous"

"He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde / In all his lyf unto no maner wight."

<<I suppose I meant the Americans tend to conform more to what we British might still consider correct English, but no longer tend to use.>>

Oh, ok, well that might be the case.

<<All languages are "logical" in the sense that they all allow their speakers to communicate ideas with one another.

If they didn't, they'd be entirely useless and quickly abandoned. >>

Exactly.

I suppose I can see that the double negative might have the effect of emphasising what you're saying i.e. 'I ain't saying nothing' gives a stronger emphasis to the statement than 'I ain't saying anything'. Maybe this could be why it's so prevalent in many languages.

Interesting.

Kirk

You didn't answer my question about 'ain't'. If it's historically the contraction of 'am' and 'not', was it also used as the contraction for 'is' and 'not' and 'are' and 'not'? Or is that a more recent thing?