Why aren't British and American English considered separate languages?

From what I understand, the difference between American and British English is greater than the difference between many European languages (such as Serbian and Croatian). So why are the European languages considered separate, but the variants of English aren’t? Is it just because instead of calling the languages “English” and “American”, we called them “British English” and “American English”?

Wouldn’t it solve many of the arguments between Americans and Brits if we just agreed they’re two similar, but different languages?

I know there are other versions of English, but these are the main two.

Actually, Serbian and Croatian are often considered varieties of the same language, Serbo-Croatian.

Where to draw the line between dialects and languages is arbitrary, but hardly anyone would draw it between forms so similar as the standard forms of British and American English.

Hardly. This assumes that there’s a single form of British English, and a single form of American. A number of forms of English in the British Isles have a much greater call to be considered separate languages, and sometimes are, such asScots (not to be confused with Scottish Gaelic). Jamaican Creole is also as different from other dialects of English as Haitian Creole is from French, and the latter two are often considered separate languages. If you considered all the forms of English that are as different from each other as standard British and standard American as separate languages, there would probably be dozens of them.

Well then, it seems the basis of my question was false. I’ve also heard it said about German and Luxembourgish, Swedish and Norwegian, but I’m probably giving too much weight to things “I’ve heard said”.

As for calling British and American the main forms of English, I was mainly meaning that they’re the ones I usually see referred to/name dropped the most in disputes about spelling, grammar, etc.

Nobody considers Serbian and Croatian to be separate languages except the Serbs and the Croats.

That’s mostly because those are the main ones that actually have a standard written form that includes rules of spelling or grammar. Other dialects or variants of English mostly don’t, so their written forms use the standard rules of American or British.

Scots does have a standard modern form, e.g.:

Bit more different, nae?

If Jamaican Creole had a standard written form, as Haitian French Creole does, it would very likely be considered a separate language.

The Lord’s Prayer in Jamaican Creole (Jamaican Patois):

Carribean English might as well be a separate language(and it would be more accurate to label each islands variant separately).

The quick and dirty way to differentiate languages is to ask if they’re mutually intelligible. A Russian speaker could not understand Basque without taking lessons in it, for instance.

Some languages (e.g., French and Spanish) are closely related, but the majority of the words are spelled or pronounced differently. A French speaker may recognize Spanish without training, but she’d have some trouble following it.

American and British English are mutually intelligible. Sure, there are some differences in pronunciation – but that’s just a sign of dialect. And there are terms in one that are not the same as the terms for another. But at least 95% of the words of the two are the same. There are always regional variations in languages (e.g., Canadian French vs. French from France), but the vast majority of terms are the same in both, making it the same language.

My native language and dialect is Hiberno-English. I have read lots of American literature; I do not regard it as written in a different language; not even close. Likewise I have watched lots of American TV and films; it is just nonsense to suggest that, for me, these are media in another language. I am far more likely to need to have American cultural references explained to me than I am to have American language explained to me.

They just aren’t different enough.

This is one of those “this is true… but” situations. While it’s true that mutual intelligibility is a reasonable heuristic, it’s also true that languages can work on a treadmill of mutual intelligiblity. It’s not necessarily transitive. I might be able to understand a Londoner, and a Londoner might be able to understand someone from Edinburg, who may in turn may be able to understand even a thick Glaswegian accent, but that doesn’t mean I can understand Glaswegian.

The boundaries between languages is ultimately fuzzy. English and German are separate languages, but it wouldn’t take as much effort to hammer out some sort of trade language as it would between English and Russian. I can’t understand everyone who ostensible speaks “English”, but there are some people who can easily understand both me and them.

There’s an old line that says “a language is a dialect with an army and a navy”, used to joke about why British English and American English are the same while Cantonese and Mandarin are both “Chinese”. While certainly true to a degree, there’s a lot more complexity than that, and you could spend quite a lot of effort just defining what a “language” is.

I’m working with people in England, Scotland, Australia all the time. We understand each other fine. We spend far more time explaining cultural references and local idioms than clarifying the words spoken.

Missed edit: There’s also “one way” intelligibility. My old friend from Azerbaijan once explained to me that Azeri people can generally understand Turks, but not the other way around.

That’s an old joke, but I think you told it wrong. By that standard, British and American should be different languages.

Er, yeah, I knew something didn’t sound right. It was the English thing :smack:. It’s usually used to joke about why Cantonese and Mandarin are considered the same while, say, Dutch and German are different*.

  • Or insert some other languages. I know some linguists I talked to consider them the same language but I don’t know how mutually intelligible they are.

If I watch a CNN or BBC broadcast, I can understand either equally well, with an occasional difference being noted when a local term is used, and mostly just notice a different accent. They aren’t even different dialects.

They’re pretty different to be considered the same language. On the other hand, I understand that Swiss German verges on being a separate language.

They’re pretty different to be considered the same language. On the other hand, I understand that Swiss German verges on being a separate language.

The comment seems to have originated in the 1940s but without reference to specific examples.

I used to know a guy from Australia and I think the 95% the same thing is correct, but you have to stop him all the time to say “whut?”.

Off the top of my head what business is Maccas? What is a mozzie? It is mostly slang but it can make a conversation unintelligible. Putting it in real world terms it isn’t a different language, but there is a steep learning curve and no guarantee other English speakers from around the world will understand everything you’re saying.

Mickey D’s.

A skeeter.

If you’re trying to prove people in the south don’t speak English…:smiley:

I guess the lesson all around is cut the slang if speaking to an international audience.