[My first language isnot English and Iam studying English literature but the difficult thing which I face is the difference between American English and British English please any one help me in this topic
Printable View
[My first language isnot English and Iam studying English literature but the difficult thing which I face is the difference between American English and British English please any one help me in this topic
What specific questions or problems are you having with the differences? Depending on what you are reading, the differences between the two are usually not that significant, as far as I can see.
The Difference Between American and British English
I hope this helps. :)Quote:
According to wikipedia: American English and British English (BrE) differ at the levels of phonology, phonetics, vocabulary, and, to a lesser extent, grammar and orthography. The first large American dictionary, An American Dictionary of the English Language, was written by Noah Webster in 1828; Webster intended to show that the United States, which was a relatively new country at the time, spoke a different dialect from Britain.
Differences in grammar are relatively minor, and normally do not affect mutual intelligibility; these include, but are not limited to: Different use of some verbal auxiliaries; formal (rather than notional) agreement with collective nouns; different preferences for the past forms of a few verbs (e.g. learn, burn, sneak, dive, get); different prepositions and adverbs in certain contexts (e.g. AmE in school, BrE at school). Often, these differences are a matter of relative preferences rather than absolute rules.
Differences in orthography are also fairly trivial. Some of the forms that now serve to distinguish American from British spelling (color for colour, center for centre, traveler for traveller, etc.) were introduced by Noah Webster himself; others are due to spelling tendencies in Britain from the 17th century until the present day (e.g. -ise for -ize, programme for program, skilful for skillful, chequered for checkered, etc.), in some cases favored by the francophile tastes of 19th century Victorian England, which had little effect on AmE.
The most noticeable differences between AmE and BrE are at the levels of pronunciation and vocabulary.
The English we study here in Finland is kind of a mixture of both American and British English. Our studybooks contain both British and American texts. At school it's probably a bit more British English than American English, but when you watch tv, most series are from USA and only some are British. I read books written in English without thinking about whether it's American or British language. I'm afraid I mix both Englishes a lot when I speak or write :lol:
Winston Churchill once quipped that Britain and the US are two great nations separated by a common language.
(Read in that what you may)
Whilst both usage are understood easily when written, they sometimes present problems when spoken mainly because of accent. But then we can say 'what accent?'
Even within each country there are differing accents, however, strange as it may seem, these accents can vary regionally far more in much smaller Britain, than in the US. The main division of accent in the US is between the North, and South (confederate South) states. Though New England does differ from say California.
Those of you who remember the movie 'My Fair Lady' which was based on George B. Shaw's 'Pygmalion', will remember Professor Higgins who was a professor of language, said he could not only tell what part of Britain someone
came from, but what street. An exaggeration to make a point maybe.....or is it?
Often we could tell what part of a town a person came from as evidenced by
a person's accent, and use (or misuse) of grammar.
Within China we have a difference in language, and dialects where people from one region cannot understand another, so they write it down as the written language is the same.
I believe there are some differences in Spanish as spoken in Spain, and that in South America, especially in 'th' sound, but they would understand each other quite easily.
What has always interested me is at what point the American accent moved away from any of the many British accents. They must have been the same at one time. It could hardly be the 'Revolution' as the Canadian also moved in line, more or less, with that of the US.
The big difference, to me, in American English, and British English, which can produce some both amusing, and embarrassing results is in some word meanings.
For example, in America 'Homely' means plain or ugly. In Britain it would mean
like a 'motherly' type person, for which the Americans would use 'homey.'
An embarrassing moment for me was when I first went to the US and I needed to get a card to send for someone's birthday. This shop, like many at that time, had the habit of marking the price in pencil on the back of the card.
I asked the little old lady shopkeeper if she had a rubber which is, or certainly was, usage in British schools for something which you 'rubbed out' something in pencil. The old lady almost froze, and went red. Then it dawned on me that I had heard at sometime that the Americans use 'eraser'. Rubber meant something else.
Since the advent of TV and the abundance of US made programmes, and TV adverts, a close familiarity of the American accent and word usage has grown in Britain. Most British singers of popular songs will use an American style accent. In the same way, when Hollywood produces 'high culture' and biblical movies, they will tend to use British 'cultured' accents (there are many not very cultured).
It does not sound quite right when having God speak out the 'ten commandments' with an American accent. Why? I don't know, but many made that point, and I concur. Perhaps it is because we all know that God is an Englishman (smile)
Well, hope that has added some food for thought. I could go on, as it can be an interesting subject, but will stop there.
I will add this, which challenges one poster who appears a little anti-Brit when he said that when you hear a British accent you want to punch him (I assume not 'her') in the face.
After I had lived in the US for some time I found I was unconsciously slipping into a slight American accent. People, I mean, Americans, who knew I was British all said please don't lose your British accent. Some even said, when introduced - say something in British for me.
The difference is American English is ignorant; British English is charming. If it sounds elevated, most likely the word/term hails from Britain. If it sounds ignorant, then most likely it's American. American English is easier to read because it requires less IQ points; The Queen's English can be held responsible for those lofty summits of discourse.
FWIW - I'm an American, but have always found kindred hearts and minds in European literature.
That's a little strong, isn't it, Countess... and I am a Brit. But thanks all the same.
I have heard some very pleasing American Accents by cultured Americans, and some terrible, almost unintelligible ones from some uncultured Brits.
One American accent that was most pleasant was that of Alistair Cooke now dead, but was well known for his Letter from America in Britain. Occasionally these are replayed on some history type programmes,
Then there was John Kennedy, America's last great president. I still like to hear his speeches. An actors voice, and demeanour I liked was Robert Holden - he played an Englishman in one film without really changing his accent.
But to use anyone else but Julie Andrews in 'My Fair Lady' was an unpardonable sin, though I did like Audrey Hepburn in most of her other roles.
I would take issue with this statement because it implies in some way that accent is related to level of culture of the speaker. It is that kind of nonsense that prevented anyone other than those with a very distinguished english accent from presenting programmes on UK television for many years. Accent deals with the way you hear words pronounced growing up which has no indication on level of culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midas
The comments by Pensive and Midas are good and accurate. To be more specific with regard to phonology, the two versions of English, and several other versions of English use slightly different vowel sounds. It is difficult to be precise about the vowel sounds, because they vary considerably within each country. There are as many variations in the spoken language within each country as there are between the two countries.
Most of the differences in spelling are trivial, like 'ise' versus 'ize'. Many of the differences in spelling have appeared quite recently; for example "traveller" and "traveler", the first spelling was considered correct when I was in elementary school, but one "l" has been dropped. The rule was when adding a suffix to a word that ended in a consonant after a short vowel , repeat the final consonant and add the suffix.
Good dictionaries usually have both the British and American spellings.
Check out Wikipedia, or dictionary.com, I think thats where I figured some of it out.
Well, when you think about it, it's quite realist opinion told in a sarcastic tone. Most of immigrants who went to USA were poor people, villagers who has no land etc.
And other things were mostly joke about British. Relax, be more comfortable.
I'm not a big fan of British English, simply cuz I don't normaly get what is being said lol (which is MY bad), maybe cuz I'm more used to American English. But to be honest, I think I like British English more...but understand American English better.
And since we're talking about phonetics and accents..can someone tell me, in brief, how many accents are there in UK and how many accents are there in the US?!
And I have one comment concerning what's been said about British people and how some people assume that they're cold arrogant people. Well, no offence, but English came essentially from UK...if they say Colour and not Color, maybe that's cuz this is how it was said before it was changed in the american english. I know that when the New World was discovered, they were choosing between English and German, as thier language there. I don't know how accurate this piece of information is, but at least it shows that the British are the ones who 'made' this language if I may say. And I think every country has its own traits, the British being cold, as some might say, isn't a bad thing..it's just who they are. I personally find the British people to be one of the funniest people ever.
So yeah, I guess we should discuss things with no regards to personal impressions here.
".......I would take issue with this statement because it implies in some way that accent is related to level of culture of the speaker. It is that kind of nonsense that prevented anyone other than those with a very distinguished english accent from presenting programmes on UK television for many years. Accent deals with the way you hear words pronounced growing up which has no indication on level of culture....."
You may take issue, but I retract not.
'Cultured accent' used here is well understood, as you obviously well understood it. It conveyed my meaning as I intended.
That to which you are really referring has nothing to do with the terminology I used to differentiate between a once accepted standard of English, required by the BBC which once dominated Radio, and early TV, and regional accents - in particular accents 'north of Watford' metaphorically speaking.
This broke down after the sixties, and, at one point, it became 'in' to have a regional accent. But then so many things have broken down, and changed.
We live in a fast changing world. Words are used freely now on the media we would have got a hiding for as children. I have heard children using it in the home without any check from their parents who also use it freely.
We may argue for hours on defining 'culture', or most words as these change
through time, for that matter. and probably get nowhere. I use what is generally understood, and also, in this case, what is defined in the dictionary.
Many new super rich, particularly footballers, I find, have not only poor accents, when being interviewed display poor linguistic ability. Accents, and speech, should be like music - pleasing to the ear. Why? Because it makes people want to listen, and that is the key to good communication.
(I'll cheer them along with everyone when they are 'bending in' that goal, but lord preserve us from some of those interviews)
Quite frankly, this reeks of snobbery. Cant have those people (like me who has one of the accents you would probably describe as unintelligible & uncultured) giving interviews. They should learn to keep to their station in life as buffoons and minor side characters for your enjoyment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midas
I would quite like to be saved from the pretentious south of watford accent which to me is just as unintelligible & pleasing to the ear as you find other accents to be.
Sorry but "poor accents"? what would you define as "poor accent"? Surely its really just the dialect of that area and therefore has nothing whats so ever to do with poor etc. There is no such thing as a poor accent, there are only different dialects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midas
There are more Dialects in Dublin than in the whole of Britain. There is no general poor accent as you called it. The dialect we call common Innercity can asl be found on the southside of Dublin amongst the D4 accent and the south dublin accent. doesnt matter.
And also just because these "poor accent" footballers have "bad linguistics" in your eyes, doesnt mean they arent educated. The Dialect of an area can have an effect on peoples speach; they might sentance things differently that to the "text book" English of Posh snobs from Eton, a language that a minority of british speak.
Kilted Exile. 'seek and ye shall find' or 'a person will see what he seeks' is another, non biblical, version. You see, I was born in Dunfermline. Last time I was there it was still north of the border, and the people had strong Fife accents - some pleasant, some unpleasant to my ears.
You appear to have a 'chip on your shoulder', sadly, I find, like many fellow Scots, brought about by a low self image. Or, what else can I assume from your seeing that which isn't there, or intended.
I presented to you an objective view to the subject in question, one free of national pride, or lack of it, as either can lead to a fall (in grace).
"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To hear oorsels as others hear us
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An' foolish notion
(Apologies to Rabbie Burns)
Sorry, but you are the one reading too much into things. I have mentioned Scotland nowhere in any of my posts and have no issue with the English (the mother is english) My objection would be the same if I was a cockney, brummie, yorkshire dales lad, geordie or any other place which would fit into your "uncultured" accent criteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midas
Quote:
"Sorry but "poor accents"? what would you define as "poor accent"? Surely its really just the dialect of that area and therefore has nothing whats so ever to do with poor etc. There is no such thing as a poor accent, there are only different dialects.
And also just because these "poor accent" footballers have "bad linguistics" in your eyes, doesnt mean they arent educated. The Dialect of an area can have an effect on peoples speach; they might sentance things differently that to the "text book" English of Posh snobs from Eton, a language that a minority of british speak."
Niamh Get a good dictionary, or thesaurus, and look up the many meanings of 'poor' and you will find the one that fits. You knew exactly what I meant, otherwise why get so uptight.
The beauty of English is that we have a wealth of words with similar meanings, and there are others I could have used. However, the one I chose was quite adequate and would be understood by most even if English is not their first language.
'Education' (which I never mentioned), per se, is not necessarily an indication of ability with the English language. Apparently Isaac Newton was a very poor speaker and it is said when he lectured before he had finished most students had disappeared.
Today, I am convinced that if we banned, under penalty of death, the word 'basically', it would wipe interviews from our Television. There would also be a dampening down of conversation generally. You don't believe? Take note next time you hear some 'celebrity' being interviewed.
Salutations
Kilted Exile, Irn Bru...............Who are you kidding or trying to kid. And please don't come back with you eat Mars Bars but that does not mean you are a Martian or pretending to be one.
Wow, who would have thought that such a simple question would start some of the discussion in this post;) From a very analytical point the main difference between American English and British English has a lot to do with formality. I'm American and speak properly by American standards, but not as properly as someone in Britan. In fact, much that is said I can not understand because of the differences in slang and the meaning of expressive phrases just as much of what I say isn't easily understood because of the words I use. Much of this difference is likely due to the fact that so many different groups have moved into the U.S. If you just consider my heritage, I'm German/Irish/Scottish/British/Dutch and maybe a couple others I can't remember (in short I'm a mutt). With the wealth of immigrants the language has been altered to incorporate phrases, words, and spellings from these groups. Also, the country was not founded by people who could be considered the highest crust of society and didn't speak the language as properly as the aristocracy and people in more elevated professions. Thus you find American English. I can't say if one is better than the other, but you will likely find some distinct similarities and differences between the two as you further your studies even though they are both considered English. I wish you luck in your studies:)Quote:
Originally Posted by rony
Hi rony. Hmmm.. Up in Canada we speak "British" English. The main difference is a 'u' in words such as colour, honour, ect. . Also we usually use 're' instead of 'er' in some words such as centre. That may be a French thing though. In general the differences lie in the accents, which make translation difficult.
I think that if you are attempting a study on linguistics, then you should rather focus on specific dialects. Language changes so much from specific place to place that there can be many differences in language. A good example is Canada- so large, so beautiful- that words can be used in the East for a signifier that have a different meaning in the West. What I would do is compare to specific places -- maybe New Orleans and London-, find literature and then proceed studying. Good luck.
Man, you really are stereotyping. What does me having a picture of Scotland's other national drink have to do with anything? You are honestly trying to psycho-analyse me and my thoughts because of what I have as my avatar? I had the grinch as the avatar for a while, does that mean I'm obsessed with Boris Karloff? Straws and clutching come to mind.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Midas
Actually 'colour' and 'color' are pronounced (or 'said') the same. It's only the spelling which is different which is largely down to the French influence on the English language (the 'u' is a clear French influence).
Essentially the English language belongs to England, albeit that regionally, both within UK and USA, and Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada it is spoken differently. Note there is only one nation other than 'England' who attempts to claim ownership of the language, whereas it is spoken in many parts of the world. Is there an 'Australian English' dictionary, I wonder?
Perhaps all the Brits you have met hail from the sunny South and the majority of people in UK don't speak with a 'posh' accent. Watch Wallace & Gromit if you want an idea of how different Brits speak - if you can understand it that is!!!
To me, the most wonderful part of the EU is that it has brought many nations 'together' in a sort of 'brotherhood' and shared objectives. These nations have had a long warring history between each other.
However, there is no indication, and reason, why any will, or should, give up their language, or their particular 'shade' of culture, including national dress, if they have one.
In Canada, the French Canadians never had to give up their language or traditions. In the UK itself in tiny Wales, there are place name written in Welsh, there are Welsh TV programmes, and there are areas where Welsh is spoken on a daily basis.
Many Dutch generally have had a good command of English for centuries. Though I have found that some do not readily admit to it when asked because they feel that they do not speak it perfect enough for their standards which, in language, are high.
Individuality, culture, and language are personal, and social, preserves. I would not want this to disappear, it brings colour to our world.
However, for understanding, and appreciation, of each other, good communication is absolutely necessary - lack of it brings suspicion, mistrust, and insecurity.
Gradually, since WW2 much to the chagrin of the French who are so proud of their language, and their importance in the world and cultural superiority over their long old past adversaries - the English, the English language, has become the accepted, though unofficial, 'international language. This is mainly because of the powerful influence and economic dominance of the United States. Plus, of course, the reach of the old, far flung, British Empire.
I do not decry the French for their attitude, which is breaking down among the young. I enjoy my visits to that wonderful country, and its people, especially when travelliing on the super fast, smooth, Eurostar direct from London to the heart of Paris. I understand how they see things, and take pride in their culture.
It is said that the most widely spoken language on a daily basis is Chinese. Though I have not seen any reliable statistics on this. I also read that there are more people learning English in China, than have English as their national language.
Slowly, I am getting to the point, so bear with me.
There can be resistance by many to learning a 'foreign' language. This, to me, is understandable for a number of reasons. Yet, today more than ever as the world 'shrinks' and we are travelling more, and integrating more, there is need for a common language. Many foreigners, some who speak more than two languages, tell me that they have found English the easiest to learn. Be that as it may, it is becoming more widespread and accepted throughout the world.
Maybe, therefore, it is time to formerly declare it the international language. Wait for it, don't get too ruffled until I explain.
Here is my suggestion: The name be changed to 'Interlang'. It would have its own dictionary. There would be an international body to monitor and guide the language such as adding new words, or adopting words, or
adapted words as in 'franglais' from other languages as interlang develops.
The grammar basis, and spellings, would be on current English - whether British or American doesn't matter to me. Eventually, it will be none 'foreign' nationalistic - the feeling it is something 'English' will disappear
under its new name.
Nations will teach both their own traditional language as at present, but it will be automatic to teach 'Interlang' as a second 'national language'. Everyone will be bilingual. Both Interlang and English will still have to be taught in the UK , USA and the other 'English' speaking countries, as interlang could possibly develop outside the parameters set by the current English language rules.
This would then make the international language truly international, besides it being national through having
the stigma of 'foreign' removed.
Just an idea. Any comments welcome, but keep them objective, and dampen any nationalistic, emotional, stirrings please. We are trying to bring the world together, not hack each other to pieces.
As Burns said: ' For a' that, and a' that, it's coming yet for a' that, that man to man, the wide world oe'r shall brothers be for a' that.' (I am sure he included 'sisters'.)
Lit-Net Forum discussions never fail to surprise us!Quote:
Originally Posted by mkhockenberry
Any more inflammatory comments addressed to other members personally or their national backgrounds, this thread will be closed.
That's a worse idea than Esperanto. English has readily accepted words from other languages for several centuries, and since WWII has been used by more and more people in non-English speaking countries, but formalizing it as an international language would eliminate the advantages that it has. English became an international language, because it was the language of powerful and wealthy countries. When France was a wealthy and powerful country, French was used as an international language. Your Interlang will be popular around the world when the Interlangese have taken over a few countries and become involved in half of the world's commerce, some advances in science would also help. English, as the international language, is messy enough, but trying to formalize the arrangement would be much messier. Let's let the many versions of English be used as people wish, until another language overtakes it around the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midas
That's very silly idea. Why would we accept English as an international language? Just because it's widely spoken today? If there should be an international language it should be most logical and mathematical language. Research a little about computer comparisons of languages and ask linguistics; which language has most logical grammar structure; here's a hint; it starts with Turk ends with -ish.
Today English spoken widely but just 100 years ago French was widely spoken. It's called "lingua franca". And "lingua franca" changes. In past it was Latin. Today it's widely spoken just because imperialism of Britain in past and more than that; power of USA (btw; democracy! We controlled all North Africa, Mid-East, and East Europe for over 300 years but never forced people to forget their languages and religion).
I don't think we should get into a debate about whose language is more 'logical'..every language has a logical grammar structure in its own..I don't even understand what's meant by logical grammar structure..I know that Arabic for instance has logica grammar structure..and I love Arabic more than any lang. in the world, including English...but that doesn't mean that I won't accept English as an International lang. and the fact that I accept English this way, doesn't mean that I'll forget my native lang. It doens't make sense. We're arguing about something that's been going on for hundreds of years, had it been Turkish, Arabic, French or German, we would have been right here discussing the same thing and saying why should we accept whatever lang. as the International lang.
We don't accept English as an International lang. just cuz it's wide spoken, we accept it cuz this is how it's been for a long time. And it IS due to other reasons, not just the lang. Political, economic and power reason. It's not a coincedence that English has been the number one lang. in the world in the time of the English Empire (the most powerful country in the world) and now it's the number one lang. in the world in the time of the US (the most powerful country in the world).
Do I wish that my lang. was the one wide spoken in the world? hell yeah, but that's not gonna happen any time soon. So, and for many reasons, we accpet English as a lang. we don't accept English as an identity. And there's a huge difference.
Linguistics tells an Arabic child can't talk his own language perfectly until age of 10-11.
And of course every language has it's own logic. But i said "mathematically". Few years ago IBM made a research about it, and Turkish was the best language for computers because of it's perfect logic.:thumbs_up
Arabic is a difficult language, and many adults can't speak it correctly, and they make a lot of grammatical mistakes, which is ashame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turk
But this is a new info. for me, that Turkish was found to be the best languages for computers..I guess I'm gonna have to download it on my language bar now...even though I don't know a word in Turkish :lol:
But I got your point now..;)
Well, such responses were no surprise, they were anticipated. It takes very little with some for prejudices, and emotional nationalism to rise at the first opportunity so that it blinds from what a person is saying.
My suggestion does not push 'English' to be adopted as the International language. On the contrary, it was to establish a common international language devoid of any 'nationalism', that has an unofficial role now.
In condemning what I wrote, some points were brought up that actually supported my view.
As one pointed, echoing what I had already said, English language today is made up from many - very many others. Yes, it has incorporated many words from Britain's former colonies brought home by its soldiers, and civil, and military, officials - particularly from India.
The days of 'lingua Franca' have gone for many reasons. It is a different world today, far different from any other age. The trend is set, and will develop further. Plans are already afoot for uniting Asia, and the Americas.
Presidents talk of 'One World', What country owns the big multinationals - none really, when you dig deep. They are 'international'. They may sound Japanese, or American, or Spanish, or German, or Russian, and the links are not always so obvious, but they are there - tied by the big International Bankers who own the debt. And big business today influences governments, not the other way around.
I mention this only to point out we cannot compare today with previous ages when the world was segmented into fully independent nations. But if you don't see it now, you will as the months and years roll on.
Interlang would belong to no particular nation. It would be governed by an international body, and would develop along its own lines. In English today, you have Latin, Greek, German, French, Italian, Spanish, even Chinese, and many others.
But, if Turk want's us all to 'talk Turkey', well he's entitled to his view.
I know it's hard language grammatically. On the other hand it's richest language in the world.
Anyway, we had to keep Ottoman as common language in Muslim world; it's grammatically Turkish; but has tons of words from Arabic and Persian. But we didn't. And now North Africa's second language is French (of course i don't forget that French forced them for this).
Yeah, you talked about "interlang" (whateevr that means?) and made it English. "Interlang will be mix of many languages" you say, and then you declare "English has derived tons of words from other languages".
You sound like "nationalism" is bad, but it's necessary according to me. Of course states like Germany or England hates nationalism; but only when it's in countries they try to control! But when it's about your country; you are quite nationalistic, and while our nationalism's basic character is Anti-Imperialism your nationalism's basic character is racism! Sorry but not me; history says that!
There won't be one nation. Globalization is not a good thing; it's simply big fish wanna eat lil fish. Mostly supported by rich countries and their big capitalist companies, they support globalization so they will exploit labor of other countries easier. Yes it's normal they hate nationalism.
Also why today wouldn't compared to past? Aren't we living in history? Isn't this age a part of history? Also what's "fully independent" nations means? All nations were connected to others in past too, they traded and communicated with them; but they were still "independent". And if you really believe uniting world; here's an answer from world; FIRST GIVE BACK THE CAPITAL AND LABOR YOU STOLE FROM AFRICA, ASIA AND LATIN AMERICA!
And last word; no i don't want everyone to speak Turkish. But if you make an "interlang" which is basically "English" then i create my "interlang" too.
I think we have had enough OT posts.
If anyone is really interested in discussing the differences between British and American English without the patriotic muscle-flexing, please feel free to start another thread.