Dan Smith
Challenge: can you tell the difference between US and British English in these two passages?
I don't think I could. See if you can. Both of these passages relate the experiences of someone who dressed up as a homeless man, in order to report on conditions in London in the first half of the twentieth century. One is by a US writer, one by a British writer. Can you tell which is which? Please don't give away the answer if you happen to recognize a passage. Warning: in a few cases I may have changed giveaway spellings from British to US.

Passage X:

<em>I have found that it is not easy to get into the casual ward of the workhouse. I have made two attempts now, and I shall shortly make a third. The first time I started out at seven o’clock in the evening with four shillings in my pocket. Herein I committed two errors. In the first place, the applicant for admission to the casual ward must be destitute, and as he is subjected to a rigorous search, he must really be destitute; and fourpence, much less four shillings, is sufficient affluence to disqualify him. In the second place, I made the mistake of tardiness. Seven o’clock in the evening is too late in the day for a pauper to get a pauper’s bed.</em>

<em>For the benefit of gently nurtured and innocent folk, let me explain what a ward is. It is a building where the homeless, bedless, penniless man, if he be lucky, may casually rest his weary bones, and then work like a navvy next day to pay for it.</em>

<em>My second attempt to break into the casual ward began more auspiciously. I started in the middle of the afternoon, accompanied by the burning young socialist and another friend, and all I had in my pocket was thru’pence. They piloted me to the Whitechapel Workhouse, at which I peered from around a friendly corner. It was a few minutes past five in the afternoon but already a long and melancholy line was formed, which strung out around the corner of the building and out of sight.</em>

<em>It was a most woeful picture, men and women waiting in the cold grey end of the day for a pauper’s shelter from the night, and I confess it almost unnerved me. Like the boy before the dentist’s door, I suddenly discovered a multitude of reasons for being elsewhere. Some hints of the struggle going on within must have shown in my face, for one of my companions said, “Don’t funk; you can do it.”</em>

<em>Of course I could do it, but I became aware that even thru’pence in my pocket was too lordly a treasure for such a throng; and, in order that all invidious distinctions might be removed, I emptied out the coppers. Then I bade good-bye to my friends, and with my heart going pit-a-pat, slouched down the street and took my place at the end of the line. Woeful it looked, this line of poor folk tottering on the steep pitch to death; how woeful it was I did not dream.</em>

Passage Y:

<em>One evening, having made ready at a friend's house, I set out and wandered eastward till I landed up at a common lodging-house in Limehouse Causeway. It was a dark, dirty-looking place. I knew it was a common lodging-house by the sign 'Good Beds for Single Men' in the window. Heavens, how I had to screw up my courage before I went in! It seems ridiculous now. But you see I was still half afraid of the working class. I wanted to get in touch with them, I even wanted to become one of them, but I still thought of them as alien and dangerous; going into the dark doorway of that common lodging-house seemed to me like going down into some dreadful subterranean place—a sewer full of rats, for instance. I went in fully expecting a fight. The people would spot that I was not one of themselves and immediately infer that I had come to spy on them; and then they would set upon me and throw me out—that was what I expected. I felt that I had got to do it, but I did not enjoy the prospect.</em>

<em>Inside the door a man in shirt-sleeves appeared from somewhere or other. This was the 'deputy', and I told him that I wanted a bed for the night. My accent did not make him stare, I noticed; he merely demanded ninepence and then showed me the way to a frowsy firelit kitchen underground. There were stevedores and navvies and a few sailors sitting about and playing draughts and drinking tea. They barely glanced at me as I entered. But this was Saturday night and a hefty young stevedore was drunk and was reeling about the room. He turned, saw me, and lurched towards me with broad red face thrust out and a dangerous-looking fishy gleam in his eyes. I stiffened myself. So the fight was coming already! The next moment the stevedore collapsed on my chest and flung his arms round my neck. ''Ave a cup of tea, chum!' he cried tear-fully; ''ave a cup of tea!'</em>

<em>I had a cup of tea. It was a kind of baptism. After that my fears vanished. Nobody questioned me, nobody showed offensive curiosity; everybody was polite and gentle and took me utterly for granted. I stayed two or three days in that common lodging-house, and a few weeks later, having picked up a certain amount of information about the habits of destitute people, I went on the road for the first time.</em>
2 feb. 2020 19:12
Opmerkingen · 28
5
"The passages were selected in a way to exclude logical choice, weren't they?" Yes and no. My feeling is that English is English, and that supposed differences between US and British English are wildly exaggerated.

Certainly, I chose passages that did not have obvious, reliable giveaways. <em>I'm</em> not going to reveal any key clues because I don't know of one. If Donny is right I must have missed one.

Last time I tried this I used newspaper stories of the same event. This time I wanted to use literary sources, in this case, I used more-or-less-nonfictional coverage of a similar situation. These are both among my favorite writers. Neither passage is a departure from the writer's normal style, although neither of them has a easily recognizable style.

One passage was published in 1903, one in 1937 which could be confusing since English does drift and change over that long a period, in both countries. The earlier writer <em>probably</em> influenced the later one.
3 februari 2020
4
A very interesting exercise, Dan. Thank you for doing this.

I suspect that the American contributors who assumed that the first extract was British English were just fooled by the datedness and formality of register, along with the use of 'shall'. There's a common assumption that anything that looks stuffy and old-fashioned must be British.

For me, the first text simply <em>felt</em> American: it seemed to have the style and rhythms of US literature of a century or so ago. Like Alisha, I could hear American cadences in my head as I read it.

'Tardiness' also struck me as a very American word. I had a look at some ngrams, and it appears to have dropped out of popular usage in British English texts in the mid-1800s. It is almost never used today.
3 februari 2020
4
Reading the first extract “X” I have an American-accented voice in my head. The style and rhythm somehow remind me of a famous story about a dog.

Though there are some inconsistencies I would guess the the author of the second extract “Y” is British.

Could “X” be from this?

 
Don’t peak if you would rather wait to find the answer!   

2 februari 2020
3
Dan.
 
I thought that the second extract was Orwell, but guessed it more likely to have come from his 1933 book, <em>Down and Out in Paris and London</em>, when he lived in virtual destitution, sleeping in Salvation Army hostels and working as a dishwasher.
 
I suspect the difficulty in differentiating these two extracts has a lot to do with the periods in which they were written. In more modern post-war literature I expect you would find more distinguishing features.     

5 februari 2020
2
John wrote "Stevedore... More British Than American although there is no reason why the word would not travel to American ports." It's common in the US. I haven't heard that word in decades, though, due to the development of container ships. In the 1950s there were constant labor issues involving a powerful union, the International Longshoremen's Association. In the news they were <em>always</em> called <em>stevedores,</em> except when the union was being named.
3 februari 2020
Meer weergeven