Comparative analysis of British and American English varieties

British and American English

Comparative Analysis of British and American English

Benefits of a comparative, polyimide approach

Conscious identification of differences

Traditional Standard English (SE)

Other standardized Wes

Unity within English

Zero-marking of 3rd person singular verbs

Modal Past in English

Modal Auxiliaries

Modal Past in Hypothetical Conditionals

Cross-Linguistic Findings

Comparative Analysis of British and American English

In a world where globalization is the trend -- a global economy, a global internet, global warming, global businesses -- it should not be surprising to learn that there is now also an undisputed global language, namely English. Because English today is used in a plethora of contexts around the world, as the native language of millions, the official language of numerous nations, and a lingua franca in a multitude of international dealings, more users of English than ever before either feel some ownership in the language through their national dialect or some resentment towards the Western cultural norms that tend to come embedded with the language. These citizens of English as an international language feel that changes need to be made: in how the language is viewed in general, in attitudes towards varieties of English, in the construct of English proficiency tests, and in methods of teaching English.

The current paper is a comparative analysis of the British English and American English. The author has focused and discussed various aspects of language, including accent, vocabulary, writings, words, spells, etc. while comparing these aspects in British and American English

Benefits of a comparative, polyimide approach

The overwhelming majority of scholars, whether considering a traditional EFL context, an ELF context, an EIL context, or an SESD context, advocate the benefits of an approach in which the students are exposed to more than one variety of English, affirming the legitimacy of each variety while becoming aware of the differences between them. This has been called a poly model approach, versus the mono model approach where one variety is learned in isolation, and also a comparative approach, due to the comparison of one variety to another, as in dialect awareness. In this way, students learn to see accuracy in light of contexts of usage, not as deficiencies of a "worse" variety as compared to a "better" variety, and to consider successful communication a more important outcome of learning English. One benefit of this approach is that it promotes students sense of self-worth as members of specific socio-cultural groups in that it validates the language with which they identify. Another benefit is that it promotes the use of culturally appropriate content and pedagogical methods. Furthermore, it helps students see that there are many more NNSs than NSs of English and, for that reason users of English do not need to produce English like NSs to be considered proficient in the language. Finally, for most contexts in which English is used internationally, communication which is appropriate is the goal over communication which is accurate; thus, the goal of ELT for students heading into the world of international relations should focus less on form and more on communication.

Conscious identification of differences

According to the results of Yiakoumetti's study (2005, 2006, 2007), a comparative approach is indeed important to produce striking improvements in the ability to use the standard dialect when the non-standard dialect is juxtaposed with it in the language classroom, especially when compared with control groups which are only exposed to the standard dialect in language class. Rather than causing greater interference from the D1, encouraging the students to consciously identify differences between the D1 and D2 resulted in less grammatical, lexical and phonological interference of the D1 on the D2 by the students in the experimental group than those in the control group as well as a greater awareness as to when certain features are appropriate and when they are not. From this result, it could be predicted that learning SAE in comparison to a WE would help students recognize and keep straight which features belong to WE contexts and which are appropriate for SAE contexts.

It is important to note, however, that the non-standard variety used for comparison to the standard variety in the Cypriot situation was the students' own mother tongue, whereas in most ESL/EFL classrooms, the non-standard variety would be the students' world English, in almost all cases an L2 at the very least, if not an L3 or L4. Could the results of the Cypriot study have similar implications for a situation in which the students are likely to lack the same intimate familiarity with the non-standard variety as they would with their mother tongue? Just as Brandon et al. (2009) assert that in the area of bilingualism and bidialectism new knowledge is built on current knowledge, it would seem reasonable to assume that even an L2- or L3-level of familiarity with one variety of English should provide some current knowledge on which to base a comparison with a standard English, and that greater improvement in target language proficiency would occur. Furthermore, there would still be the benefit of an increase in learning gained through the technique of consciously noticing differences between varieties. Thus, while the benefits of a comparative, poly model approach may not be as striking in the WE to SAE context as they were in the Cyprus study's MT to D2 context, it seems rational to expect that some improvement over a strictly monomodel approach would be observed.

Traditional Standard English (SE)

For many years, the only standard for properly spoken and written English was Standard British English (SBE), also known as Received Pronunciation (RP) in the 19th century. Today, Standard American English (SAE) enjoys similar prestige on the world stage thanks to the growth of the United States' prominence as a global power and, with the advent of the computer age, the fact that word processing software has nudged standards towards SAE conventions (McArthur, 2001, p. 6). However, increasingly the question is being asked: who really has the right to decide what is "standard" for a language with hundreds of millions of users around the world (McArthur, 2001, p. 1)? At this time standard English (SE), seen as a dual standard of U.S. And U.K. conventions, still seems to be the goal of language learning programs around the world, especially when the high-stakes international tests of English proficiency are normed to one of those two standards.

Other standardized Wes

In the case of world Englishness, several other varieties besides SBE and SAE are also considered standard. Standardization can be defined both by the existence of dictionaries and grammar books for a particular variety or by the production of publications in that variety. In this way, Australian English (AusE), Canadian English (CanE), New Zealand English (NSE), Philippine English (PhlE), White South African English (WSAE), Indian English (IndE), Irish English (IrE) and Singaporean English (SgE), among others, are also considered standard varieties (McArthur, 2002, pp. 443-444; Kortmann et al., 2004, pp. xv-xvii).

Unity within English

While great diversity exists in English, scholars also acknowledge the commonalities that unite the language. For communication to occur across cultures through the use of English, speakers of diverse varieties of English must draw upon the features of English they have in common in order to make themselves understood. As Widdowson (1997) points out, "Even if we allow diversification for local communities, we must surely deny it in the interests of global communication" (p. 143). The following terms reflect the unifying forces at work within the dynamics of global English.

English as an international language (EIL)

The term international English is often used interchangeably with the term English as an international language (EIL); however Seidlhofer (2004) makes a slight distinction between the two. Whereas IE refers to one "clearly distinguishable, codified, and unitary variety," EIL refers to the situations of English usage internationally, whether in Expanding Circle, Outer Circle or Inner Circle contexts (p. 210). In this way, EIL can be seen as relating to ELF in that both refer to the context in which the language is used as well as to the actual code itself.

Zero-marking of 3rd person singular verbs

In terms of present tense verb inflections, SE is an anomaly among languages as there is very little marking of present tense verbs, except in the irregular verbs be and have, and the 3rd person singular inflection of regular verbs. Making this 3rd person singular marking even more unusual is the fact that it is a redundant feature; because SE is a non-pro-drop language, the marking of the verb as 3rd person singular through the addition of an -s is unnecessary. Thus, it stands to reason that ELLs would find this feature of standard English troublesome, if not downright illogical. Breiteneder (2009) cites the online version of Kortmann and Schneider's Varieties of English Multimedia Reference Tool which shows that out of 46 varieties they pooled, 26 of them exhibited this feature (p. 257) [e.g., So he show up and say. He don't like me.]. Among NSs, the 3rd person singular -s has acquired the status of one of the "markers of in-group membership" (Seidlhofer, 2000, cited in Breiteneder, 2005, p. 5). Surprisingly, however, in a corpus of 50,000 spoken words compiled from "group discussions between representatives of the EU government and national agencies of higher education" (pp. 6-7), Breiteneder (2009) did not find a large incidence of 3rd person singular - O. In only about 21% of the cases where 3rd personal singular was used was the -s left off. Perhaps, reasons Breiteneder, this is because all the speakers in the study had received formal schooling in a SE, but if so, then why was the -s used in some cases and not in others? Breiteneder posits that in some instances the interlocutors may have been purposely leaving off the -s for social reasons (2009, p. 262).

Certain verbs and expletive phrases seem to divide along dialectal lines with regard to use of modal past. Jacobsson (1975) writes that the sentences I suggested he took it with him, and I suggested he should take it with him, both using modal past, are acceptable in British English and equivalent to the American version I suggested he take it with him, which uses subjunctive (p. 222). Likewise, it's important (that) you went at once (British dialect) (Jacobsson, p. 222) as compared with it's important (that) you go at once (American dialect). And there are many more examples of this kind. Interestingly, this dialectal difference is not merely stylistic, as Jacobsson observes: "In British English, the sentence it is important that we have an adequate supply of atom bombs could be taken to mean that we have already got the supply, while the American interpretation would be that it is important for us to get it" (p. 222).

Finally, the modal past expression as it were is commonly employed, at least in American English, as a rhetorical device signaling metaphor. It is frequently used to reinforce the metaphorical nature of an idiomatic expression that directly precedes it, as in: He told me so he, straight from the horse's mouth, as it was.

Modal Past in English

Most speakers of English, if asked what is meant by the -ed ending on a word such as lived, will know very well that it means "past tense" and signifies that the action of living is in the past. And in many cases, of course, this is true. However, past morphology also frequently has a meaning quite apart from "past time"; in fact, it often refers specifically to present or future time and semantically reflects modality rather than temporality. Consider the following uses of past morphology on the verb live:

When I was 16, I lived in Hawaii.

If I lived in Hawaii, I could go to the beach every day.

I wish I lived in Hawaii.

Of the above examples, only the first actually refers to past time. The others refer to the present time, despite containing the same nominally "past" form of the verb, lived. This incongruity between past morphology and non-past time is made more salient by the use of adverbs:

If you called her right now, you wouldn't get her because she's not at home.

If you asked me tomorrow, I would say yes.

This phenomenon is also reflected in the use of nominally past tense morphology alongside present tense morphology, which appears in either implied context or the paraphrased version of the sentence with nominal past tense morphology:

If I had a car, I would come pick you up. (Implied: I don't have a car; present tense)

How did you know I was here?

(implied: I'm here now; present tense)

He talks to me as if I were a child. (implied: I'm not a child; present tense)

What did you say your name was? (Jespersen, 1924, p. 294)

(temporally equivalent: What is your name? present tense)

I was hoping you could help me.

(temporally equivalent: I'm hoping you can help me; present tense) Could I ask you question?

(answer: Yes, you certainly can; present tense)

Jespersen (1954) refers to these uses of past morphology as "tenses of the imagination" and writes that "verbal forms which are primarily used to indicate past time are often used without that temporal import to denote unreality, impossibility, improbability or non-fulfillment" (p. 112). Davidsen-Nielsen (1990) points out that using past morphology to denote "unreality" is an epistemic usage, i.e., clearly modal (p. 170). Iatridou (2000) proposes that "past" is not actually the primary meaning of the morphology that usually goes by that name, but rather that "past" is simply one manifestation of its semantics.

Time

Critical to the analysis of modal past is an understanding of both the form of tense morphology and the various notions of time as they are represented in English. English tense morphology corresponds to a binary system of past and non-past, signaled by verb inflections. Notional time, on the other hand, comprises past, present, and future, as well as relative pasts and futures. Notional time can be indicated many ways: periphrastically, through markers such as will and be going to; with adverb phrases of time, habituality, or punctuality; with verbal inflections such as -ed and -s; with aspectual morphology; through lexical sub-categorization, i.e., eventive (run) vs. stative (be); and simply through implied context. Jespersen (1924, p. 257) organizes notional time according to the following diagram:

Since the present is a point, it "has no dimensions and cannot be divided" (Jespersen, p. 256). The future and past, on the other hand, stretch infinitely in each direction and are sub-divided into distinctions of anterior and posterior time: anterior past, posterior past, anterior future, posterior future.

Anterior time, the past relative to another time, is formally represented in English by the perfect aspect. In the sentence, I had been in Istanbul for two months before I found that great kebab restaurant, the "having been in Istanbul" is past relative to the "finding of that great kebab restaurant." It is the past of a past - an anterior past, marked by combining past morphology with perfect aspect. Likewise, anterior future is rendered by combining the future marker will with the perfect: By the time I leave Istanbul next June, I will have eaten lots of kebab. This mechanism also shows up in the present perfect, which connects past and present time. It is important to differentiate anterior past and remote past, which exists in some languages.1 Remote past is a deictic designation, marking past as remote from the time of speaking, whereas anterior past is a relative designation which simply marks one past as occurring before another.

Notional past, then, can be represented in English both by inflectional past morphology and by the perfect aspect. An important feature of the perfect-as-marker-of-past is that the perfect can be used to mark temporal past only, never modal past. This will be illustrated in the following sections on modal auxiliaries and hypothetical conditionals, where the perfect aspect plays an important temporal role. Inflectional past, on the other hand, is generally ambiguous between a temporal and a modal reading. Whether a particular instance of inflectional past morphology represents temporal past or modal past depends on contextual elements. This ambiguity is demonstrated in the examples below, in the past morphology of had:

If he had a car... then why did he ride his bike everywhere? (temporal) if he had a car... then he wouldn't have to ride his bike everywhere. (modal)

Modal Past in Hypothetical Conditionals

As has been discussed in the previous section, the past morphology that we see in would, could, might, and should relative to will, can, may, and shall often signifies a modal past relationship rather than a temporal past relationship. This is true for all epistemic uses of would, could, might, and should. In such cases, past morphology has the effect of weakening epistemic force, of making the epistemic claim more remote or less direct. This affects of weakened epistemic force plays an important role in many contexts where modal auxiliaries are used. One of the most common of these is the case of hypothetical conditional sentences. Conditional sentences can be sub-classified as follows: those dealing with real possibilities, and those dealing with hypothetical possibilities. Real conditionals such as if it rains, we'll go to the movies contain propositions that are either neutral or positive with regard to actualization; they do not cast doubt on the likelihood of actualization or the reality of the proposition expressed in the protasis (if it rains). Perhaps it will rain, and perhaps it won't -- the above statement makes no claim for either outcome. By contrast, hypothetical conditionals are those which deal with imaginary situations, whose propositions are specifically marked as being in some way removed from reality, non-actual. Hypothetical conditionals can be set in present, future, or past time:

a. If I knew how to cook, we wouldn't eat out so often. (present time)

b. If I won the lottery, I would buy a new house. (future time5)

c. If she had told me she was a vegetarian, I wouldn't have made steak for dinner. (past time)

Linguists sometimes refer to these kinds of sentences as "counterfactual" conditionals, or break them into categories of "counterfactual," and "future less vivid," (Iatridou, 2000). And it is true that we often interpret the meaning of such sentences as "contrary to fact" when they deal with present and past time propositions, and as "unlikely to occur" when they deal with future time propositions. However, these interpretations are not inherently part of the semantics of the past morphology, but rather are derived from the pragmatic context of the sentence. When I say if I won the lottery, it's quite possible that I haven't even bought a lottery ticket, in which case my winning is not just unlikely, but impossible. Similarly, we might say if John were coming to the party tomorrow knowing full well that it isn't possible for John to come, implying a meaning that is counterfactual rather than just unlikely.

Yet "counterfactual" is also an inaccurate description of the underlying semantics of modal past morphology. Consider the following example: If the butler had done it [and he may have], we would have found exactly the clues we did in fact find (attributed to Comrie, 1986 and Harder, 1989, as cited in Davidsen-Nielsen, 1990, p. 180). An inspector investigating a murder case might proclaim the above sentence and subsequently conclude that the butler did, in fact, do it. Thus even a past time hypothetical conditional may express a proposition that is actually true or factual, in that it matches the real world facts of the situation. The semantic import of a hypothetical conditional is merely that it represents a proposition as an imagined possibility; it is an "imaginative representation" of a proposition (Field's term in describing what he calls "the subjunctive," 1925, p. 30). Hypothetical conditionals are thus a coherent category comprising any and all those conditional sentences which express a proposition as a hypothetical reality, regardless of whether that proposition is factual or counterfactual, likely or unlikely to actualize.

Hypothetical conditionals are formally distinguished from real conditionals by the presence of modal past morphology in both the protasis (the if clause) and in the apodosis (the "result" clause). In addition, the modal past in the apodosis clause must be expressed by a modal auxiliary. Hypothetical conditionals are thus modally distinct from real conditionals, which contain only temporal past morphology (or no past morphology). As previously mentioned, hypothetical conditionals may be set in either past or non-past time. Non-past time hypothetical conditionals contain only modal past morphology whereas past time hypothetical conditionals contain both modal and temporal past morphology. Thus, non-past time hypothetical conditionals exhibit one instance of "past" (modal past), whereas past time hypothetical conditionals exhibit two instances of "past" (one modal past and one temporal past). Compare:

Non-past time:

If I were in Istanbul right now, I would go to that kebab restaurant for lunch.

1 PAST 1 PAST

Past time:

If I had been in Istanbul yesterday, I would have gone to that kebab restaurant.

2 PASTs 2 PASTs

Here it is appropriate to recall that the perfect construction also functions as a marker of past under certain circumstances, and only of temporal past. In the case of past time hypothetical conditionals, rather than signaling an anterior past, the "double past" of the past perfect functions as simply two distinct instances of past morphology (Iatridou, 2000). Ippolito (2002) concurs with the claim that in many cases, the past perfect is the "morphological realization of two pasts in the same clause" (p. 36). Thus, in past time hypothetical conditionals, the inflectional layer of past morphology is the modal past (had), while the aspectual layer, provided by the perfect aspect (been), is the temporal past.

In addition to modal past, the other distinctive feature of hypothetical conditionals in modern English is that they always employ a modal auxiliary to carry the modal past morphology of the apodosis clause. Since of all the modal auxiliaries, only would, could, and might have active past morphology, only these three may appear in the apodosis of a hypothetical conditional. These three modals thus often perform a role that other modal auxiliaries never do; they alone are available to convey the semantics of modal past. It should be noted that in some dialects, should also belongs in this group; in these cases should functions as a variant of would.

In the examples below, assuming that won is an instance of modal past, we can clearly observe this requirement that the modal auxiliary in the apodosis be a modal with active past morphology:

If I won the lottery, I buy a new house.

If I won the lottery, I buy a new house.6

The presence of would, could, or might in the apodosis is sometimes the only feature which distinguishes a hypothetical conditional from a past time real conditional. Because the past morphology in the protasis can, in the absence of contextual clues, be interpreted as either temporal or modal, the distinction between past modal auxiliaries and present modal auxiliaries is crucial; the difference between a past time real conditional and a non-past time hypothetical conditional may hinge on this distinction. Consider:

Notice that each of the sentences with must, ought to, and had better is perfectly valid as a real conditional, where the protasis is referring to past time: 'Assuming that I have won the lottery...'. There is no requirement that the two clauses of a conditional sentence match each other with regard to temporal semantics, but they must match in terms of modal semantics.

would could might

(should)

*must *ought to *had better

*will *can *may *shall

The presence of would, could, or might in the apodosis is sometimes the only feature which distinguishes a hypothetical conditional from a past time real conditional. Because the past morphology in the protasis can, in the absence of contextual clues, be interpreted as either temporal or modal, the distinction between past modal auxiliaries and present modal auxiliaries is crucial; the difference between a past time real conditional and a non-past time hypothetical conditional may hinge on this distinction. Consider:

If you visited Istanbul, then you must know how beautiful the Bosphorus is. (real)

If you visited Istanbul, then you would know how beautiful the Bosphorus is. (hypothetical)

The only structural difference in the examples above is the use of must vs. would in the apodosis clauses. Since must contains no past morphology, there is no modal past in the apodosis of the first sentence. Would, by contrast, does have past morphology and thus supplies an instance of modal past in the apodosis of the second sentence. This structural difference signals an entirely different semantics. Whereas the first sentence is a real conditional, the second sentence is a hypothetical conditional, implying that the hearer has not, in fact, visited Istanbul.

Both Iatridou (2000) and Fillmore (1990) observe that conditional sentences must be symmetrical with regard to modal morphology; Fillmore writes that "conditional sentences... are special grammatical constructions with two parts whose [modal] properties must be established in parallel" (p. 159). This means that one must often compare both clauses of a conditional sentence against each other in order to determine whether the ensemble expresses a real proposition or a hypothetical one, as in the examples above. There are, nonetheless, some cases which are genuinely ambiguous:

If I wanted to, I would go to the movies.

If I walked quickly, I could get to school in 15 minutes.

The above sentences could represent real conditionals referring to a past time, as in: when I was 16, I lived close to my high school and if I walked quickly, I could (was able to) get there in 15 minutes. After class, if I wanted to, I would (used to) go to the movies. Alternatively, these sentences could represent hypothetical conditionals in non-past time: If I wanted to, I would go to the movies next weekend, but I don't want to. and: If I walked quickly, I could get to school in 15 minutes, but since I'm walking slowly I won't make it that soon. This ambiguity stems from the fact that would and could convey temporal past when used in the context of their root semantics (thus rendering real conditionals), and modal past when used in the context of their epistemic semantics (thus rendering hypothetical conditionals).

In addition to the defining elements of having modal past in both clauses and a past form modal auxiliary in the apodosis clause, there are other structural features which set hypothetical conditionals apart from real conditionals. Conditional sentences are essentially composed of two (or more) clauses combined such that the content of one clause is contingent on the content of the other. In addition to the two clauses, there must be some indication of conditionality; i.e. some way of marking the conjoined relationship between the two clauses. Hypothetical conditionals differ from real conditionals in the range of ways that this relationship may be marked. Often, this relationship is marked by a conjunction such as if, unless, otherwise, although, lest, or a conditional expression such as on condition, in case, even if, as if, as though, in the event that, so long as, etc. In a hypothetical conditional, inversion of the subject and auxiliary may substitute for a conjunction as the marker of the conditional relationship:

Had I known, I would have told you.

If I had known, I would have told you.

This does not hold for real conditionals, however:

*Have you been to Istanbul, then you surely have eaten kebab.

A similar type of difference between hypothetical and real conditionals is that in a real conditional, the conjunctions and but can serve to connect the two clauses, whereas in a hypothetical conditional they cannot. Likewise, real conditionals may be simply juxtaposed without any overt conjunction, whereas for hypothetical conditionals, a conjunction is required. Consider:

Cross-Linguistic Findings

The use of past morphology to convey modal meaning that is evident in English occurs frequently in human language; it is found in many different languages and language families. Palmer (1986), discussing connections between modality and both past and future morphologies in many languages, states that although "the future may be thought to be the most "modal," yet it is the past tense that is in fact mostly interrelated with modality, and particularly with unreality" (p. 209-210). Iatridou (2000) also notes the wide cross-linguistic attestation of past morphology coinciding with what she calls "counterfactual" morphology, concluding that the sheer weight of evidence precludes accidental homophony as an explanation for this phenomenon (p. 245). James (1982), in her study of cross-linguistic modal past usage, writes that "there is clearly a universal semantic link between the notion of past tense and the notion of remoteness from reality... The past tense marking device universally gravitates in its use towards the situations in which the greatest distance from reality is involved" (p. 396).

Certain verbs and expletive phrases seem to divide along dialectal lines with regard to use of modal past. Jacobsson (1975) writes that the sentences I suggested he took it with him, and I suggested he should take it with him, both using modal past, are acceptable in British English and equivalent to the American version I suggested he take it with him, which uses subjunctive (p. 222). Likewise, it's important (that) you went at once (British dialect) (Jacobsson, p. 222) as compared with it's important (that) you go at once (American dialect). And there are many more examples of this kind. Interestingly, this dialectal difference is not merely stylistic, as Jacobsson observes: "In British English, the sentence it is important that we have an adequate supply of atom bombs could be taken to mean that we have already got the supply, while the American interpretation would be that it is important for us to get it" (p. 222).

Finally, the modal past expression as it were is commonly employed, at least in American English, as a rhetorical device signaling metaphor. It is frequently used to reinforce the metaphorical nature of an idiomatic expression that directly precedes it, as in: He told me so himself, straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.