In a well-known example of the linkages among language, culture and politics, Noah Webster compiled his much-touted dictionary in 1806 to free America from linguistic and cultural dependency on Britain and to forge a thoroughly “American” political identity.
Like Shakespeare before him who made fun of the many idiosyncrasies of English spelling and pronunciation, Webster sought to reform spelling so that it reflected pronunciation more accurately and to portray an America that was logical and new. As a Federalist, Webster wanted to “manufacture” a national identity through the use of distinctively American, not British, spelling and language. He imagined that such a linguistic move would help to unite people with a “supposedly common ancestry” no matter how various their actual origins were.
Neither Shakespeare nor Webster could have imagined the explosion in use of English around the world today. There are so many uses and varieties of English now that new terms to describe or define them have also arisen. “Englishes” are now described as “World English,” “Global English,” “English as an International Language” with confusing associated abbreviations (WE, GE, EIL) and may be named for the locations in which they are primarily used such as Singaporean English, Indian English or China English. While Webster tried to use spelling reform (ex., “favor” rather than “favour”) as a way to make the American language separate and distinct from the British language, he had no idea how much trouble he would create for those of us English teachers who work around the world and with users of English from everywhere inside the United States.
Now learners and users have to deal with whether to learn and use “British English,” “American English,” “Australian English” (the latter 2 as former colonies of the British Empire (with formerly or primarily “Caucasian” populations) or some of the emerging (and huge (!) Englishes such as “China English” or “Indian English.” As an applied linguist with a bent toward descriptive approaches, I am interested in the notion of mutual comprehensibility as a “good enough” goal rather than a goal of “perfect” American or British English. Other English users or linguists, perhaps prescriptivists, may still be concerned about how FAR a variant of English may “deviate” from some set standard established in the colonial past. To increase communicate across types of English/es used by and between members of various communities, I recommend adding the skills of “respectful listening” and “a patient attitude” to the most honed grammar and pronunciation skills that our respective educations have provided us. We need to be aware of, and wary of, attitudes about English where traces of racism, colonialism, or regionalism may cause us to judge others negatively or unfairly based merely on how one uses English.
Webster made changes in English to help forge a distinctive American identity but our challenge in the modern world is to use English similarities to help forge more peaceful relationships across boundaries.
Lepore, Jill. “A new Americanism: Why a Nation Needs a National Story.” Foreign Affairs. The New Nationalism. March/April 2019. Volume 98, Number 2, p. 10-12.
Shakespeare, William. Love’s Labour’s Lost.
Susan Olmstead Wang 