imported>Chunbum Park |
imported>John Stephenson |
| (174 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == '''[[British and American English]]''' == | | {{:{{FeaturedArticleTitle}}}} |
| ''by [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] and others <small>([[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]], [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]], [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]], [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]], [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]], and [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]])</small>''
| | <small> |
| ----
| | ==Footnotes== |
| Between '''[[British English]] and [[American English]]''' there are numerous differences in the areas of [[lexis|vocabulary]], [[spelling]], and [[phonology]]. This article compares the forms of British and American speech normally studied by foreigners: the former includes the [[Accent (linguistics)|accent]] known as [[Received Pronunciation]], or RP; the latter uses [[Midland American English]], which is normally perceived to be the least marked American [[dialect]]. Actual speech by educated British and American speakers is more varied, and that of uneducated speakers still more. [[Grammar|Grammatical]] and lexical differences between British and American English are, for the most part, common to all dialects, but there are many regional differences in pronunciation, vocabulary, usage and slang, some subtle, some glaring, some rendering a sentence incomprehensible to a speaker of another variant.
| | {{reflist|2}} |
| | | </small> |
| American and British English both diverged from a common ancestor, and the evolution of each language is tied to social and cultural factors in each land. Cultural factors can affect one's understanding and enjoyment of language; consider the effect that [[slang]] and [[double entendre]] have on humour. A joke is simply not funny if the [[pun]] upon which it is based can't be understood because the word, expression or cultural icon upon which it is based does not exist in one's variant of English. Or, a joke may be only partially understood, that is, understood on one level but not on another, as in this exchange from the [[Britcom]] ''[[Dad's Army]]'':
| |
| | |
| Fraser: Did ya hear the story of the old empty barn?
| |
| Mainwaring: Listen, everyone, Fraser's going to tell a story.
| |
| Fraser: The story of the old empty barn: well, there was nothing in it!
| |
| | |
| Americans would 'get' part of the joke, which is that a barn that is empty literally has nothing in it. However, in Commonwealth English, 'there's nothing in it' also means something that is trivial, useless or of no significance.
| |
| | |
| But it is not only humour that is affected. Items of cultural relevance change the way English is expressed locally. A person can say "I was late, so I ''Akii-Bua'd'' (from [[John Akii-Bua]], Ugandan hurdler) and be understood all over East Africa, but receive blank stares in [[Australia]]. Even if the meaning is guessed from context, the nuance is not grasped; there is no resonance of understanding. Then again, because of evolutionary divergence; people can believe that they are speaking of the same thing, or that they understand what has been said, and yet be mistaken. Take adjectives such as 'mean' and 'cheap'. Commonwealth speakers still use 'mean' to mean 'parsemonious', Americans understand this usuage, but their first use of the word 'mean' is 'unkind'. Americans use 'cheap' to mean 'stingy', but while Commonwealth speakers understand this, there is a danger that when used of a person, it can be interpreted as 'disreputable' 'immoral' (my grandmother was so ''cheap''). The verb 'to table' a matter, as in a conference, is generally taken to mean 'to defer', in American English, but as 'to place on the table', i.e. to bring up for discussion, in Commonwealth English.
| |
| | |
| English is a flexible and quickly-evolving language; it simply absorbs and includes words and expressions for which there is no current English equivalent; these become part of the regional English. American English has hundreds of loan words acquired from its [[immigration|immigrants]]: these can eventually find their way into widespread use, (''[[spaghetti]]'', ''mañana''), or they can be restricted to the areas in which immigrant populations live. So there can be variances between the English spoken in [[New York City]], [[Chicago]], and [[San Francisco]]. Thanks to Asian immigration, a working-class [[London|Londoner]] asks for a ''cuppa cha'' and receives the tea he requested. This would probably be understood in [[Kampala]] and [[New Delhi]] as well, but not necessarily in [[Boise]], [[Idaho]].
| |
| | |
| Cultural exchange also has an impact on language. For example, it is possible to see a certain amount of Americanization in the British English of the last 50 years. This influence is not entirely one-directional, though, as, for instance, the previously British English 'flat' for 'apartment' has gained in usage among American twenty-somethings. Similarly the American pronunciation of '[[aunt]]' has changed during the last two decades, and it is considered classier to pronounce 'aunt' in the [[Commonwealth]] manner, even for speakers who continue to rhyme 'can't' and 'shan't' with 'ant'. [[Australian English]] is based on the language of the Commonwealth, but has also blended indigenous, immigrant and American imports.
| |
| | |
| Applying these same phenomena to the rest of the English-speaking world, it becomes clear that though the "official" differences between Commonwealth and American English can be more or less delineated, the English language can still vary greatly from place to place.
| |
| | |
| ''[[British and American English|.... (read more)]]''
| |
The Mathare Valley slum near Nairobi, Kenya, in 2009.
Poverty is deprivation based on lack of material resources. The concept is value-based and political. Hence its definition, causes and remedies (and the possibility of remedies) are highly contentious.[1] The word poverty may also be used figuratively to indicate a lack, instead of material goods or money, of any kind of quality, as in a poverty of imagination.
Definitions
Primary and secondary poverty
The use of the terms primary and secondary poverty dates back to Seebohm Rowntree, who conducted the second British survey to calculate the extent of poverty. This was carried out in York and was published in 1899. He defined primary poverty as having insufficient income to “obtain the minimum necessaries for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency”. In secondary poverty, the income “would be sufficient for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency were it not that some portion of it is absorbed by some other expenditure.” Even with these rigorous criteria he found that 9.9% of the population was in primary poverty and a further 17.9% in secondary.[2]
Absolute and comparative poverty
More recent definitions tend to use the terms absolute and comparative poverty. Absolute is in line with Rowntree's primary poverty, but comparative poverty is usually expressed in terms of ability to play a part in the society in which a person lives. Comparative poverty will thus vary from one country to another.[3] The difficulty of definition is illustrated by the fact that a recession can actually reduce "poverty".
Causes of poverty
The causes of poverty most often considered are:
- Character defects
- An established “culture of poverty”, with low expectations handed down from one generation to another
- Unemployment
- Irregular employment, and/or low pay
- Position in the life cycle (see below) and household size
- Disability
- Structural inequality, both within countries and between countries. (R H Tawney: “What thoughtful rich people call the problem of poverty, thoughtful poor people call with equal justice a problem of riches”)[4]
As noted above, most of these, or the extent to which they can be, or should be changed, are matters of heated controversy.
- ↑ Alcock, P. Understanding poverty. Macmillan. 1997. ch 1.
- ↑ Harris, B. The origins of the British welfare state. Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. Also, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
- ↑ Alcock, Pt II
- ↑ Alcock, Preface to 1st edition and pt III.
