The saying that England and the United States are two countries separated by the same language has long been attributed to George Bernard Shaw. While he didn’t say it quite in that way, this bit of linguistic wisdom is very true. For hundreds of years, there has been some sort of weird competition between “British English” and “American or US English.” Oh, if only it were as simple as saying “lift” for “elevator,” “knickers” for “panties,” or “braces” for “suspenders.”
People in the US tend to love to hear British accents. People in England tend to have negative feelings toward US accents. As an aside here, I have often wondered at people’s negative (and positive) opinions about accents. WHY, for example, do some people in the northern US say that southerners sound unintelligent? Why do some southerners say that northerners sound rude? Why do many people in the US think English people always sound intelligent (no offense; there are obviously many brilliant people in England, but I’m pretty sure there are some less intelligent ones as well). The fact is, there is absolutely no objective reason that one language or one form of a language is “nicer,” “prettier,” “more romantic,” “less intelligent,” or any other judgmental description. It is purely subjective, based on personal taste and idiosyncracy. One person’s “dumb and slow” is another person’s “charming and folksy.” Let’s examine the history of linguistic animosity from both sides of the Atlantic.
From the beginning of the separation of the two countries, both sides have been very protective of their respective languages. As we’ve discussed before, ALL languages change, and that is no less true for these two varieties of the English language. No, US English doesn’t need to be renamed! They’re both dialects of the same language with the same origin. Of course, they’ve developed and evolved differently, partly by natural process and partly on purpose.
According to the PBS article, “Are Americans Ruining English?” British travelers to the new world were apparently impressed by the “purity” of the colonial English in the earliest days of the American colonies. It wasn’t until around 1776 (hmmm, coincidence?) that the two sides of the pond began to complain about the linguistic stylings of the other. Fast forward a couple hundred years and we have Prince Charles quoted by the London Times saying that US English is “very corrupting.” His Royal Highness went on to say that “We must act now to ensure that English—and that, to my way of thinking, means English English—maintains its position as the world language well into the next century.” Well, he’s a prince, so he should know, right? Actually, the comments from the Prince of Wales show a sad lack of knowledge regarding language development.
Any language is bound to change over time, and two varieties of a single language are bound to change in different ways. Even today, in the US, the many different accents still heard can be traced to their origins. I’m not saying that people in the US sound like the people of the eighteenth century where they came from. I’m saying that the different regions, originally populated by people FROM different regions, saw their language evolve differently, often due to physical barriers like mountains or rivers. People notice, for example, that, to this day, the Charles River in Boston separates the stereotypical “paaak ya caaar” from “park your car.” The language heard in the Appalachian region of the US remains different from the rest of the US, a fact often attributed to its extreme isolation and the difficulty of travel to or from the region in its earliest days of settlement. Traces of eighteenth-century English can still be heard there as change has come much more slowly than in coastal urban areas.
When colonists landed in the US, their language began changing. There were new things to talk about, new scenery to describe, new vocations to pursue. US English is not a corrupt version of British English. Rather, both forms of the language evolved differently and separately from their earlier origins. Present-day British English is not closer to that origin than is present-day US English. No matter how “pretty” British English might sound to the American ear, it truly is no more English than is the variety spoken in North America.
You might be interested to know that there are characteristics of modern US English that are much more conservative (that is, more like the earlier ancestor language of both British and US English). For example, US speakers usually retain the “r” in words such as “mother” and “dear” while British speakers have typically dropped it. US speakers still use the lower, flatter “a” sound in words like “class” where British speakers have replaced it with the “a” sound as in “father.” US speakers have retained the past participle form, “gotten” used in addition to “got” where British speakers have lost the former. It goes both ways. British English is more conservative in the distinction of “t” and “d” in words such as “atom” and “Adam” or “ladder” and “latter.” US English tends to use the same consonant in the middle of all these words.
While it is absolutely true that languages develop naturally in terms of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation, it turns out that the development of SOME aspects of US English weren’t purely natural. There might have been just a teensy push on the part of one of the world’s most famous wordsmiths.
In a fascinating article by Mignon Fogarty titled “Why we have both ‘Color’ and ‘Colour,” in her “Grammar Girl’s Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing” (check out Grammar Girl podcasts and books when you get the chance!), we learn about some interesting manipulation of the language. It turns out that Noah Webster of Webster’s Dictionary fame did a bit more than just transcribe the language in existence.
Webster lived during the time when the US was becoming the US. The US Constitution was ratified after Webster published his first spelling book, but before his first comprehensive dictionary. Webster, in addition to his linguistic contributions, also wrote political essays. He is said to have known George Washington and Benjamin Franklin quite well, and I like to think of the three of them raising a glass of ale together while discussing the latest politics or sharing the latest joke at the local inn. Webster was part of the political movement that wanted the US to become its own country without the British historical influence as quickly as possible. In the beginning, there was even some debate as to whether English should become the primary language of the US or, if it did become the language, whether it should be called “English” (“Columbian” was, at that time, a popular suggestion for the name of the US language). Many, including Webster, thought it was unpatriotic to study ancient Greek, Latin, or Hebrew, rationalizing that the new country needed its own language and needed the population’s focus to be solely on that language.
To that end, Webster initiated one of the most sweeping spelling reforms of all time to separate the languages. He unilaterally made many (not all, of course) of the changes in spelling that we still recognize today. In his spelling books, for example, he taught children to spell the final letter of the alphabet as “zee” rather than “zed.” Prior to his famous dictionary, Webster wrote a smaller work called The Compendious Dictionary; it was in this work that most of the lasting changes to the language were made.
One of the most obvious changes was dropping the “u” in words such as “colour” and “honour.” He dropped the second “l” from words such as “travelled” and “cancelled.” Also changed under Webster’s linguistic authority was “re” to “er” at the end of words such as “theatre” and “s” for “c” in words such as “defence” and “pretence”; “s” became “z” in words such as “patronize.” He officially (because it was in PRINT, y’all!) formalized previously suggested changes such as dropping the final “k” in “magic” and changing “que” to “k” in “risk” (there’s another discussion about how one word becomes two, don’t you think?).
So, although it is a sacred truth that language development is natural and organic, it seems also to be true that languages can sometimes get a little push in a different direction, a push that creates lasting distinguishing marks. Imagine being able to make so many changes to the language just because you want to and for political, rather than linguistic, reasons! Oh, to have the linguistic power of Noah Webster at a time when speakers were open to sweeping change to reflect their new world.
DOING LANGUAGE 