No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
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
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
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018
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
Ebner, C.
2017. Proper English Usage: A Sociolinguistic
Investigation of Attitudes towards Usage Problems in British
English. Utrecht:
LOT.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
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