American English vs British English

Even though I am British I use American English. I find that the SF and fantasy material I write, especially, feel more... correct, somehow. I revert to using British spellings for some horror pieces, as the language of horror feels better in that form. I mix it up for the non-fiction, but as long as you are consistent within one piece (fiction or non-fiction alike), and follow guidelines and house styles, you shouldn't have problems.

I'm sure there was a thread on this a while ago...

It's very different. Not mutually incomprehensible, (usually) but different.

If you want to learn American English, you'll need American publications and/or TV.

Idioms are especially going to be different. The shared stock of idioms is mostly derived from The King James Bible and Shakespeare and other pre 1800 authors.

From what I have been told, it really depends on the audience an author is trying to reach.

A British author writing for an American audience, with stories set in America and American characters, well more than likely the author will want to use American spellings and American idioms.

But if the characters are british, even if the story is set in America, I would say leave in the british spellings and the idioms to give the book an international flavor and to be true to the character. If that makes sense.

I would also be very careful about using too much regional dialect from any country. I am not from Louisiana so I would never try to write Cajun dialect, except for maybe a word here and there to give the story some flavor. Reason, if you get it wrong, your readers are going to pound you on the dialects. Especially those from the region.

It's not just the idioms that differ, but slang, syntax, even common nouns and verbs (UK: windscreen, tin, pram, snogging; US: windshield, can, stroller, making out; etc.). And there are distinct regional differences within the US, too.

I can almost always tell a British English writer even without the use of obvious idioms or regionalisms. It creeps into sentence structure, rhythm, word choice, etc. in a subtle way.

IMO, the best way to pick up speech patterns is through osmosis. Watch American TV/film and converse with American English speakers.

It CAN be very different

If I talk about jaspers, or slamming on the anchors, or saveloys, or any number of things it may not translate well. Worth keeping in mind.


Then again, growing up I read a lot of Stephen King etc and figured out that sneakers were trainers and so on (context is king!). Though it took me a while to figure out exactly what a hershey bar was -didn't really matter cos i knew what kind of thing it was.

A lot depends on house style. Under my own name, one of my pubs keeps British spelling (and we only changed idiom where it would cause real confusion, and even then if it was in context...) and another changes to American. But I have always subbed in Brit, if that's what you are worried about. They figured from the address I probably wasn't US.

If you want to learn American English, you'll need American publications and/or TV.

Click to expand...

This. (Well, and other American media like movies and music and whatever, but you know.)

I think it would be somewhat easier for a British English speaker/writer to learn to write in American English than the other way around, just because there are far more American movies, TV shows and books out there than British (or other countries that use British English). I agree, however, that it would take more than just substituting one word for another or dropping 'u' from colour, honour etc. - there's a style difference that is subtle but present.

Australian English is different to British English yet again, though they are more closely related than American English. When I worked as a writer and editor in London, I had to consciously consider phrases I was using and whether I needed to find a British way of saying the same thing. I was constantly checking things with the British writers in the office, until it started to come more naturally.

Kenzie said:

When I worked as a writer and editor in London, I had to consciously consider phrases I was using and whether I needed to find a British way of saying the same thing. I was constantly checking things with the British writers in the office, until it started to come more naturally.

Click to expand...

This is fascinating. Can you give a few examples of the sort of AmE-typical phrasings you'd have to add British flavour (heehee) to?

I like to use the word "loads" loads because it feels rawther British and colours my writing well proper.

I'm a Canadian who has lived in Britain, gone to a British university, and had a British boyfriend, and yes, there are loads of differences that aren't even noticeable at first glance. An American (or Canadian) will usually say "I haven't gone to the store"; a Brit usually says "I've not gone to the store." Brits use the word "shall" with much more regularity than American/Canadians; same with the word "whilst". As well as all the rubbish bin/garbage can lift/elevator car trunk/car boot word differences, there are words that mean something different on each side of the pond ["pants" means trousers in North America, and underwear in Britain] and words that are current in the UK but archaic or dialectal in North America, like "reckon". Despite all my exposure to the British way, I never cease to discover new differences. My (ex) boyfriend and I spent twenty minutes trying to figure out why I didn't consider "pickle" anything like chutney. I've discussed how "hockey" in Canada is "ice hockey" in Britain, while "hockey" in Britain is "field hockey" in North America on two different occasions.

So.... yeah, lots of variation! Brits definitely get tons of exposure to the American way of speaking-- they like their American movies and TV shows-- and I thiiink most Americans will understand most British ways of speaking, though it will sound different. If you want to sound more American than British (I'd guess you're not a native English speaker?) definitely look for American ESL books and immerse yourself in American books and TV shows/movies.

As for me... well, actually, though I'm Canadian the characters in my novel are Brits. So they talk much more British-ly than I do, although I'm sure I've slipped up sometimes!

I'm Canadian. Idiom-wise and in syntax the natural speech patterns are probably closer to American English by now, but a little piece of me dies every time I see colour without the U.

I naturally pick up on British English pretty well, so I'd presume most people do too. Usually the context tells all, and generally the new word makes at least as much sense as the one we use. You train for an athletic event in sneakers, etc. Concepts on the other hand- it wasn't until I dated an American girl that I finally figured out what the heck a homecoming was, and when I wrote back she wanted to know what the difference between a territory and a province was. I'd presume the same would be true between British writers and American readers/vice versa.

Some of differences I notice in British writers' work vs. Americans:

Round instead of around.

Shall--Americans seldom use it.

"Right!" (At the beginning of a sentence, unprovoked by a question, usually followed by a declaration of what the speaker will do next.)

Example: "Right! I'll paint the house, then."

Should have done, rather than should have.

Example:

American answer: "Yes, I should have."
British answer: "Yes, I should have done."

Would have done, rather than would have.

Fewer commas than Americans use.

"A bit" and "quite" are used more often than Americans would.

Have a go.

Getting on.

Whilst, smelt, spilt, spelt, burnt.

P.S. I am sure if I wrote a British character, I'd use all sorts of Americanisms to tip off any reader. It would take hard work to overcome the habits of a lifetime. I've read many books by British authors, and if I don't understand a word or phrase, I look it up. The internet is handy. Most of the time, there's no problem, though. Things translate pretty well, and differences only add to the charm.

I never give too much thought about what to write in. My English is a mismash of Aussie/British/American. Half the time I'm not even sure what is what anymore. Like realise/realize. I think the z is American? Meh. I don't worry about it. I just write. If my publisher wants to change it they go through and do it. Most of the time it never comes up.

There are many small differences, as others have said, but as an American who loves British literature and television I've never had any trouble understanding what our friends across the pond mean, nor have I ever had trouble making myself understood to Brits. My speech and writing is a hodgepodge of both British and American idioms. This works fine for my secondary-world fantasy, but I keep having to remind myself that the kids from Oklahoma in my WIP wouldn't say "bloody hell".

I have a theory...

Forgive me if you've heard me do this one before (eg on the grammar forum), but I just can't help myself.

I need to ask why UK English says "colour" and US English says "color". And lots of other examples like that.

The answer, I think, has something to do with the way that we view language. It seems to me that US English is more orderly, more rules based, more logical. By contrast, UK English tends to be more organic and chaotic.

I'm a UK English speaker. I have lived in England all my life. When I see the word "colour", I know it is pronounced "culler". But I think a US English user would look at "colour" and expect it to rhyme with "sour" or "flour". By the application of the rules, US English expects every group of letters to have a consistent pronunciation.

By contrast, UK English works on historical precedent. I know that "colour" is pronounced "culler" because I've memorised it from an early age. It just is.

The classic example is the word "lieutenant". In UK English, this is pronounced "leftenant". I have no idea why, but that's just how it is. Interestingly, this particular word is starting to change. Younger generations of UK English users are starting to say "lootenant". One of the side effects of a language based on historical precedent is that meanings and pronunciations can change.

I watched a Sesame Street programme once which talked about "in front of" and "in back of". To a UK English speaker, the phrase "in back of" sounds funny. We just would not say it. But I imagine that a US English speaker would reason that we say "in front of" so we must also be able to say "in back of".

You can see this difference of approach in the posts in the grammar forum. US English speakers tend to be far hotter on "correct" grammar, where UK English speakers will sometimes concentrate more on how a word is used in real life.

Before anyone starts to get annoyed by this, I ought to say that neither approach is right or wrong. It's just a subtle difference in the way that language is used. I once heard a lecturer say that it might have something to do with the different histories of the US and the UK. The UK has been invaded so many times that we have become quite used to an organic and shifting language. But the US was a new continent which where there was a chance to impose order from day one.

leahzero said:

It's not just the idioms that differ, but slang, syntax, even common nouns and verbs (UK: windscreen, tin, pram, snogging; US: windshield, can, stroller, making out; etc.). And there are distinct regional differences within the US, too.

I can almost always tell a British English writer even without the use of obvious idioms or regionalisms. It creeps into sentence structure, rhythm, word choice, etc. in a subtle way.

Click to expand...

Definitely agreed it's not just the words; it's in how we write. Saying that, I got hold of a copy of Clive Barker's The Thief Of Always a couple of years ago which had been published in the US. It's a very British story but certain words had been replaced. So tap became faucet, nappy became diaper and pavement became sidewalk. Reading it like that was painful simply because it was a such a class of cultures and writing styles. It would have been like reading the characters in To Kill A Mockingbird talking about wearing trousers and speaking to their mums. Shudder.

jari_k said:

Some of differences I notice in British writers' work vs. Americans:

Whilst, smelt, spilt, spelt, burnt.

Click to expand...

The funny thing is I'm more likely to say burnt and write burned. But then I would say and write smelled rather than smelt.

Aint words well great. Innit.

Once! said:

You can see this difference of approach in the posts in the grammar forum. US English speakers tend to be far hotter on "correct" grammar, where UK English speakers will sometimes concentrate more on how a word is used in real life.

Click to expand...

I don't know anyone under the age of thirty in the UK who was taught rigorous, proper grammar in public education unless they elected to take English Language at A-level, myself included. It's just not been on the curriculum.

My own understanding of grammar is somewhat... fluid. Mostly I can tell when something doesn't "feel" right but I don't have the technical background to work out why. I don't think I'm alone in this.

Honestly, the standard of "correct" English I hear in the UK from native speakers is way behind that of non-natives - again, myself included.

Maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong crowd...

jari_k said:

smelt, spilt, spelt, burnt.

Click to expand...

I'd actually use all of those in addition to smelled, spilled, spelled, and burned. I'd consider them different tenses:

The fire burned the wood / the wood was burnt.

As per my previous post though, I'm no grammarian.

onesecondglance said:

I don't know anyone under the age of thirty in the UK who was taught rigorous, proper grammar in public education unless they elected to take English Language at A-level, myself included. It's just not been on the curriculum.

My own understanding of grammar is somewhat... fluid. Mostly I can tell when something doesn't "feel" right but I don't have the technical background to work out why. I don't think I'm alone in this.

Honestly, the standard of "correct" English I hear in the UK from native speakers is way behind that of non-natives - again, myself included.

Maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong crowd...

Click to expand...

Or maybe the UK is less interested in what is or is not "correct"?

My son, aged 11, is being taught more about how to express himself and be creative than he is about the rules of grammar.

Once! said:

I need to ask why UK English says "colour" and US English says "color". And lots of other examples like that.

The answer, I think, has something to do with the way that we view language. It seems to me that US English is more orderly, more rules based, more logical. By contrast, UK English tends to be more organic and chaotic.

I'm a UK English speaker. I have lived in England all my life. When I see the word "colour", I know it is pronounced "culler". But I think a US English user would look at "colour" and expect it to rhyme with "sour" or "flour". By the application of the rules, US English expects every group of letters to have a consistent pronunciation.

By contrast, UK English works on historical precedent. I know that "colour" is pronounced "culler" because I've memorised it from an early age. It just is.

The classic example is the word "lieutenant". In UK English, this is pronounced "leftenant". I have no idea why, but that's just how it is. Interestingly, this particular word is starting to change. Younger generations of UK English users are starting to say "lootenant". One of the side effects of a language based on historical precedent is that meanings and pronunciations can change.

I watched a Sesame Street programme once which talked about "in front of" and "in back of". To a UK English speaker, the phrase "in back of" sounds funny. We just would not say it. But I imagine that a US English speaker would reason that we say "in front of" so we must also be able to say "in back of".

You can see this difference of approach in the posts in the grammar forum. US English speakers tend to be far hotter on "correct" grammar, where UK English speakers will sometimes concentrate more on how a word is used in real life.

Before anyone starts to get annoyed by this, I ought to say that neither approach is right or wrong. It's just a subtle difference in the way that language is used. I once heard a lecturer say that it might have something to do with the different histories of the US and the UK. The UK has been invaded so many times that we have become quite used to an organic and shifting language. But the US was a new continent which where there was a chance to impose order from day one.

Click to expand...

Noah Webster changed the spellings on purpose to "Americanize" them, saying stuff about the English aristocracy having corrupted spelling and grammar and such. Most of his changes caught on, and that's why we spell stuff different. (Not all of them. Apparently he wanted to make tongue into tung and nobody liked it.)

I (an American) don't think colour is supposed to rhyme with flour, in the same way that I know through doesn't rhyme with trough and neither rhyme with though. I also know that wound, the past tense of wind, is pronounced differently than wound, the noun, (and wind the verb different from wind the noun) because I'm a native speaker and I just do. We learn these things--spelling doesn't always make sense, you just have to know. Colour is color, but one looks weird.

So I do think there is truth to what you're saying. People did want to distance themselves from the British on purpose upon their independence, so we made a tremendous declaration of our freedom by spelling things different. But we can have some very fluid grammar, too. I think the first lines of a Nelly song go something like

C'mere girl
Who your name is
Where you from, turn around, who you came with
Is that your ass or your momma half-reindeer
Can't explain it but damn sure glad you came hurr (is this spelled "Herre"? I believe it is either "hurr" or "herre" when said in this particular dialect )

'n' stuff. So, I dunno. But it is interesting, what you say, good sir or madam. I think maybe at the outset we did have this purposeful "let us revamp language to have it make sense" thing going on, but more recently it has taken on a less rigid life and gone off in some different directions.

I don't know anyone under the age of thirty in the UK who was taught rigorous, proper grammar in public education unless they elected to take English Language at A-level, myself included. It's just not been on the curriculum.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure most Americans don't get "rigorous, proper" grammar either. I didn't, anyway. Some, but not rigorous. I learned a lot more from reading in general than from lessons in school.

Once! said:

You can see this difference of approach in the posts in the grammar forum. US English speakers tend to be far hotter on "correct" grammar, where UK English speakers will sometimes concentrate more on how a word is used in real life.

Click to expand...

Only partly, I think. A lot of that depends more on what people have learnt about grammar.

My daughter (10) is taught punctuation, adjectives, nouns, verbs, complex sentence structure, how to use 'time connectives' (time adverbs) etc at school, this is at primary level. Once you move beyond secondary education into college uni, focus shifts into the different approaches to language, moves into the likes of language in context, change and diversity (halliday v chomsky, Bakhtin, Saphir-Whorf etc).

Before that we're taught English is an all-knowing diety to be worshipped, never challenged. After that we learn that English is more your punked-up neighbour who gets a kick out of studding his personables after he's slipped out of his suit. He belches, grunts, groans (and even lets rip with the ocassional fart).

I like English: he's complex, changeable, and comes in Brit, American, Aussie, Indian-hybrid flavours too.

@stanley, if you're really (really) unsure, best advice is to get a good reference grammar from both countries. Do a little compare and contrast. There are differences, but, in all honesty, if you write in your own variety of English, no publisher will shoot you for it. You'll work with editors, line edtors, proofs when the needs comes to it.

Once! said:

Or maybe the UK is less interested in what is or is not "correct"?

Click to expand...

This is entirely possible.

Once! said:

My son, aged 11, is being taught more about how to express himself and be creative than he is about the rules of grammar.

Click to expand...

Exactly as it should be, IMO. Although there are plenty of times I wish someone had sat me down and forced me to learn some of the basics... nothing stopping me doing so now, of course, apart from laziness

My son, aged 11, is being taught more about how to express himself and be creative than he is about the rules of grammar.

Click to expand...

onesecondglance said:

Exactly as it should be, IMO. Although there are plenty of times I wish someone had sat me down and forced me to learn some of the basics... nothing stopping me doing so now, of course, apart from laziness

Click to expand...

I don't believe in a slavish adherence to rules for their own sake - but I'm not convinced that the choice has to be made between creativity and learning the rules of grammar. Creativeness is usually inherent (or not) and develops with an individuality that can't possibly be corralled to the classroom's pace. And if a child doesn't at least learn the rules of grammar, how will their creativity resonate in the larger world? It will be restricted to those who understand their own small vernacular.

mccardey said:

I don't believe in a slavish adherence to rules for their own sake - but I'm not convinced that the choice has to be made between creativity and learning the rules of grammar. Creativeness is usually inherent (or not) and develops with an individuality that can't possibly be corralled to the classroom's pace. And if a child doesn't at least learn the rules of grammar, how will their creativity resonate in the larger world? It will be restricted to those who understand their own small vernacular.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The teachers in my daughter's school ask them the difference bewteen a verb and a noun, they also ask them what's the difference between a graph and a trigraph, and how modifying a noun can alter meanin. Along with this, they have 'creative sessions', where they write storues and also edit each other's work, giving suggestions for improvements.

My kids said she'd loved to see it taken beyond that, see how a story moves into print, how covers are designed, chosen. If the author gets to have a say in the design....

Creativity doesn't just happen on the paper, it's a process that brings a multitude of people together with different talents. And for the writer, that starts with knowing how to write a sentence and alter it if it's not making sense. It just needs to be taught in a creative way.

If I asked my daughter 'what rule of writing did you learn today?' I'd get a 'huh?', but in context, she can tell my why a sentence works and why one doesn't.