Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:57:45.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Great Britain and the United States: Two nations divided by an attitude?

Reviewing the scientific study of attitudes towards usage problems in Great Britain and United States of America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2018

Carmen Ebner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Having studied attitudes towards usage problems such as the notorious split infinitive or the ubiquitous literally in British English as part of my doctoral thesis, I was intrigued by the sheer lack of scientific studies investigating such attitudes. What was even more intriguing was to discover that the same field and the same usage problems seem to have received a different treatment in the United States of America. While my search for previously conducted usage attitude studies in Great Britain has largely remained fruitless, besides two notable exceptions which I will discuss in detail below (see Section 3), a similar search for American usage attitude studies resulted in a different picture. Considerably more such studies seem to have been conducted in the US than in Great Britain. On top of cultural and linguistic differences between these two nations, it seems as if they also hold different attitudes towards studying attitudes towards usage problems. Now the following question arises: why do we find such contradictory scientific traditions in these two countries? In this paper, I will provide an overview of a selection of American and British usage attitude studies. Taking into account differences between the American and British studies with regard to the number of usage problems studied, the populations surveyed and the methods applied, I will attempt to capture manifestations of two seemingly diverging attitudes towards the study of usage problems. By doing so, I will provide a possible explanation for the lack of attention being paid to usage attitudes in Great Britain.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 34 , Special Issue 4: “Bridging the Unbridgeable”: Special Issue on Prescriptivism , December 2018 , pp. 21 - 28
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albanyan, A. & Preston, D. R. 1998. ‘What is Standard American English?’ Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 33, 29–46.Google Scholar
Bryant, M. M. 1962. Current American Usage: How Americans Say It and Write It. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.Google Scholar
Burgess, T. 1996. ‘English.’ In Gordon, P. (ed.), A Guide to Educational Research. Oxon: The Woburn Press, pp. 53–81.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. 1995. Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ebner, C. 2017. Proper English Usage: A Sociolinguistic Investigation of Attitudes towards Usage Problems in British English. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Garrett, P. 2010. Attitudes to Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gilsdorf, J. & Leonard, D. 2001. ‘Big stuff, little stuff: A decennial measurement of executives’ and academics’ reactions to questionable usage elements.’ The Journal of Business Communication, 38(4), 439–71.Google Scholar
Hairston, M. 1981. ‘Not all errors are created equal: Nonacademic readers in the professions respond to lapses in usage.’ College English, 43(8), 794–806.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1992. ‘New ways of analysing meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics.’ In Pütz, M. (ed.), Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution: Studies in Honour of René Dirven on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, pp. 59–96.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. & Walmsley, J. 2005. ‘The English patient: English grammar and teaching in the twentieth century.’ Journal of Linguistics, 41(3), 593–622.Google Scholar
Kostadinova, V. (in progress). Language Prescriptivism. Attitudes to Usage and Actual Use in American English (PhD thesis). Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C. & Fillenbaum, S. 1960. ‘Evaluational reactions to spoken languages.’ Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(1), 44–51.Google Scholar
Leith, D. 1997. A Social History of English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leonard, S. A. 1932. Current English Usage. Chicago: The Inland Press.Google Scholar
Lukač, M. (in progress). Grassroots Prescriptivism (PhD thesis). Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Marckwardt, A. H. & Walcott, F. 1938. Facts about Current English Usage. New York: Appleton–Century.Google Scholar
McKenzie, R. M. 2010. The Social Psychology of English as a Global Language: Attitudes, Awareness and Identity in the Japanese Context. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. 2012. Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English (4th edn.) London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. 2001. ‘Britain and the United States: Two nations divided by the same language (and different language ideologies).’ Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 10(1), 56–89.Google Scholar
Mittins, W. H., Salu, M., Edminson, M. & Coyne, S. 1970. Attitudes to English Usage. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Queen, R. & Boland, J. E. 2015. ‘I think your going to like me: Exploring the role of errors in email messages on assessments of potential housemates.’ Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1), 283–93.Google Scholar
Rosen, M. ‘Dear Mr Gove: Michael Rosen's letter from a curious parent.’ 2013. The Guardian Online. Online at <https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/may/06/michael-rosen-letter-to-michael-gove> (Accessed August 10, 2017).+(Accessed+August+10,+2017).>Google Scholar
Sandred, K. I. 1983. Good or Bad Scots? Attitudes to Optional Lexical and Grammatical Usages in Edinburgh. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International Stockholm.Google Scholar
Tieken–Boon van Ostade, I. 2013. ‘Studying attitudes to English usage – Investigating prescriptivism in a large research project.’ English Today, 29(4), 3–12.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. 1999. ‘Standard English: What it isn't.’ In Bex, T. & Watts, R. J. (eds.), Standard English: The Widening Debate. London: Routledge, pp. 117–28.Google Scholar