General differences between British and American English

The Pronunciation of North
American-English

 

There are many more regional differences in the United
States and Canada, as far as pronunciation is concerned, than in the rest of
the English speaking world. American-English pronunciation is far more peculiar
than Australian, New Zeeland English or South African English.

                                                                                

There are many ?irregular? or ?strong? verbs in
English, however, which do not follow this pattern, diverging in a variety of
ways:

Present	Past	Past Participle
fly	flew	flown
hit	hit	hit
sing	sang	sung
teach	taught	taught

 

 

In NAmEng, a number of irregular verbs have become
regularised, while remaining irregular in English English (EngEng):

(a) In many instances, it is only the voicing of the
past tense morpheme ?(e)d which has been changed to regularise
the verb:

	EngEng	NAmEng
Present	Past & Past Participle	Past & Past Participle
burn	burnt	burned
dwell	dwelt	dwelled
learn	learnt	learned
smell	smelt	smelled
spell	spelt	spelled
spill	spilt	spilled
spoil	spoilt	spoiled

 

(b) In some irregular EngEng verbs, there is a vowel
change from /i/ in the present to /?/ in the
past and past participle forms. The NamEng forms retain the present tense vowel
in the following cases, as well as voicing the ending:

	EngEng	NamEng
Present	Past & Past participle	Past & Past Participle
dream	dreamt /dr?mt/	dreamed  /drimd/
kneel	knelt	kneeled
lean	leant	leaned
leap	leapt	leaped

 

The NamEng forms are also possible now in EngEng and
the EngEng forms may still be found in formal language and poetry in NamEng.

(c) In a few instances, the NAmEng forms are more
irregular than the EngEng forms:

	EngEng	NAmEng
Present	Past & Past Partiple	Past	Past participle
dive	dived	dove	dived
fit	fitted	fit	fitted
sneak	sneaked	snuck	snuck
get	got	got	gotten

 

NAmEng also uses dived,
fitted, and sneaked for the past
tense, but the irregular forms are more frequent:

He
dove/dived in head first

That suit
fit/fitted me last week

He
snuck/sneaked around the corner

 

In NAmEng, the Past Participle gotten was formerly restricted to being used in the sense of
?obtain? or ?acquire?:

I?ve
gotten a new car since I last saw you

 

Now,
however, gotten can be used in all
meanings except for ?have? in NAmEng, e.g.:

We have gotten home late again.

We?ve gotten together every June.

We had already gotten off the train
when it was hit.

They?ve gotten me into trouble again.

but

      I?ve
got plenty to eat

I?ve got the idea now (=
?I understand?)

 

 

 Derivational

A American dictionary

While
it is usually the case that the same derivational suffixes are productive in
both varieties of English, NAmEng tends perhaps to be more productive in its
derivations. While many such derived words are considered ?jargon? and not
accepted into common use in NAmEng, those which are accepted are often borrowed
quickly into EngEng.

Two verb-forming affixes which are somewhat more productive
in USEng than EngEng are:

-ify   as in  
citify, humidify, uglify

-ize   as in   burglarize,
decimalize, hospitalize, rubberize, slenderize

 

Another way of forming new words is by simply changing a
word?s grammatical class. This process is common to both varieties. Again,
there is more of a tendency to form new words in this way USEng than in EngEng,
e.g.:

Noun	Verb
a host	to host (?We hosted a reunion last week?)
a sky-rocket	to sky-rocket (?Prices are sky-rocket this year?)

 

 

2.3. Auxiliaries

 

Different
auxiliaries have various functions, such as entering into specific syntactic
processes, expressing aspect and expressing modality.

 

1. Modal
auxiliaries. Several of the modal are used with a different frequency
or meaning in NAmEng than in EngEng:

(a) shall. Shall
is rarely used in NamEng, except in legal documents or very formal styles, and
is replaced by will. The negative
form shan?t is even rarer in USEng.
Both varieties also often use the contracted form ?ll.

EngEng	NAmEng & EngEng
I shall tell you later	I will tell you later/I?ll tell you later
Shall I drink this now?	Should I drink this now?
I shan?t be able to come	I won?t be able to come

 

(b)should.
As well as expressing obligation and tentativeness, should in EngEng can also
have a hypothetical sense when it occurs in a main clause with a first person
subject followed by a conditional clause. In NAmEng (and with younger EngEng
speakers), would is used instead in such sentences:

(Older) EngEng:	I should enjoy living here if I could afford to do so
NAmEng & younger EngEng:	I would enjoy living here if?

 

(c) would.
USEng has two uses for this modal that are much less usual in EngEng. First, would can be used in expressing a
characteristic or habitual activity in USEng:

When I was
young, I would go there every day

 

In EngEng either the simple past or the verb with the
modal used to would probably be used
(this is also possible in USEng):

When I was young, I

went used to go

there every day

 

Second, while in EngEng would cannot be used to express a hypothetical state if this is
already signalled by the verb or by a conditional clause, in many USEng
dialects would can be used in this
way in informal speech:

USEng only:	I wish I would have done it
EngEng & USEng:	I wish I had done it
USEng only:	If I would have seen one, I would have bought it for you
EngEng & USEng:	If I had seen one, I would have bought it for you

 

In EngEng, would
and will are often used in a
predictive sense, as in:

That will be
the postman at the door

That
would be the builiding you want

Would
that be High Street over there?

 

In USEng it is more common to use the auxiliaries should or must in such sentences or not to have any auxiliary:

	is should be must be
That		the mailman at the door

 

	is
That	should be	the building you want

 

These other forms are also used in EngEng.

 

 

(d) must.
The negative of  must is can?t in southern
EngEng:

            He must be in ? his TV is on

He can?t be in
? his car is gone

                               

In USEng, the
most common negative of must is must not.
Note that, in USEng this cannot be contracted to musn?t without changing the meaning of the auxiliary to ?not be
allowed?:

He must not be
in ? his car is gone

You mustn?t be
in when we arrive (?not allowed?)

 

(e) use (d to). EngEng can treat used to either as an auxiliary, in which
case it inverts in questions and receives negation, or as a lexical verb requiring
do for these constructions:

He used to go there

Used
he to go there? (auxiliary)

Did he use to
go there? (lexical verb)

He used not to
go there (auxiliary)

He didn?t use
to go there (lexical verb)

 

In USEng, used
to is treated only as a lexical verb in these constructions, and this is
also becoming increasingly the case in EngEng.

 

(f) ought to.
USEng rarely uses this auxiliary in questions or negated forms. Instead, should is used.

EngEng			USEng
Ought we to eat that? (older speakers)			Should we eat that?
You	ought not oughtn?t	to have said that	You shouldn?t have said that You oughtn?t have said that (rare, formal)

 

 

Note that when ought
is used in USEng in the negative, the to
is usually deleted.

EngEng also can treat ought to as a lexical verb, similar to used to, in informal styles. These forms are considered
non-standard in USEng:

Did you ought
to eat that?

You didn?t ought to have said that?

 

(g) dare and need. Both of these auxiliaries are rare in USEng and usually occur
in set phrases, such as:

Need I say more?

Persons
under 18 need not apply

I dare say?

USEng also
treats dare and need as lexical verbs in negating and questioning. EngEng also has
this option:

EngEng (only) USEng & EngEng   EngEng (only) USEng & EngEng   EngEng (only) USEng & EngEng   EngEng (only) USEng & EngEng

Need you be so rude? Do you need to be so rude?   You needn?t be so rude! You don?t need to be so rude!   Dare I tell the truth? Do I dare (to) tell the truth?   I daren?t tell the truth I don?t dare (to) tell the truth

(auxiliary) (verb)   (auxiliary) (verb)   (auxiliary) (verb)   (auxiliary) (verb)

 

(h) mayn?t. The contracted form of may not is only found in EngEng, and
fairly rarely even there.

 

 

2. do. The
auxiliary do is required in all
varieties when constructing question and negative forms of simple(Do you want this? I don?t want this.).
It can also be used

 

 

for polite command or request: Do go on! Do sit down. This last use is much less common in USEng,
where please would be used instead.

 

 

3. have, do have
and have got. A well-known
grammatical difference between EngEng and USEng lies in the differing use of have, do have and have got to indicate possession.

	(I)	Have you any fresh cod? I haven?t any fresh cod	(possess at present)
	(II)	Have you got (any) fresh cod? I haven?t got (any) fresh cod?	(possess at present)
	(III)	Do you have (any) fresh cod? I don?t have (any) fresh cod?	(possess at present)
	(IV)	Do you have fresh cod? I don?t have fresh cod	(usually possess)

 

In the (I) sentences, the lexical verb have functions as an auxiliary. Such sentences are usual, if
somewhat formal or older, in EngEng, but rare in USEng. Sentences like (II) are
usual in both varieties in more informal styles. Sentences of the (III) type
are the most usual ways o

One famous American newspaper

f constructing question and negative forms indicating
possession in USEng and are now also used in EngEng, although not long ago do you have could only be used in the
habitual (IV) sense in EngEng. Sentences like those (IV) are widely used in EngEng
to express habitual possession but are not usual in USEng. An exchange like the
following would make perfect sense to an EngEng speaker but might puzzle a
USEng speaker:

Q	Have you (got) any fresh cod?
A	No, I haven?t
Q	Do you have fresh cod?
A	Yes, but we?ve already sold it all today

 

In the
past, the situation is more complicated:

(V)	Had you any money at that time? I hadn?t any money at that time	(possessed)
(VI)	Had you got any money at that time? I hadn?t got any money at that time	(possessed, not acquired)
(VII)	Did you have any money at that time? I didn?t have any money at that time	(habitually, or possessed at specific time)

 

The (V)
sentences are used only by older EngEng speakers. The (VI) sentences are usual
in EngEng but not usual in USEng. The (VII) sentences are widely used in both
varieties.

In both
varieties, the answer to a yes-no question can consist of just a subject and
auxiliary, the rest of the verb phrase being understood:

Did you go often? 
Yes, I did

Have you seen them? 
Yes, I have

Were you travelling a long time?  Yes, we were

Would they have done that?  Yes, they would (have)

 

However,
for all of (I) to (III), the EngEng reply would be I have or I haven?t (even
in (III) where the auxiliary di is present), and the USEng reply would be I do or I don?t (even in (I) and (II) where the auxiliary is have) e.g.:

	EngEng		USEng
Q	Do you have any fresh cod?	Q	Have you got fresh cod?
A	Yes, I have	A	Yes, I do

 

4. In
NAmEng, uninverted reponse questions of the type:

John went home

He did?

 

Are very
common, and indicate only mild surprise or interest. In EngEng inverted reponse
questions such as:

John went home

Did he?

 

Are
really the possibility, though the NAmEng forms may be possible for some EngEng
speakers as an indication of strong surprise.

 

Us ha agradat aquest article? Compartiu-lo!