th? ms? lv? s.
13. The late modern English
? hist? ry? f? nglish sinc? 1 800 has b ?? n a st? ry? f? xpansi? n-in g? ? graphy, in sp? ak? rs, and in th? purp? s? s f? r which? nglish is us? d. G? ? graphically,? nglish was spr? ad ar? und th? w? rld, first by British c? l? nizati? n and? mpir?-building, and m? r? r? c? ntly by Am? rican activiti? s in w? rld affairs. Braj Kachru has pr? P? S? d thr ?? circl? s? f? nglish: an inn? r circl? ? f nativ? sp? ak? rs in c? untri? s wh? r? ? nglish is th? primary languag? , An? Ut? r circl? ? f s? c? nd-languag? sp? ak? rs in c? untri? s wh? r? ? nglish has wid? us? al? ngsid? nativ? ? fficial languag? s, and an? xpanding circl? ? f f? r? ign-languag? sp? ak? rs in c? untri? s wh? r? ? nglish has n? ? fficial standing but is us? d f? r? v? r-incr? asing sp? cial purp? s? s.? ns? rvatism and Inn? vati? n in Am? rican? nglish Sinc? languag? und? rg? ? s n? s? a chang? as a r? sult? f cr? ssing an? c? an, th? first? nglish-sp? aking c? l? nists in Am? rica c? ntinu? d t? sp? ak as th? y had in? ngland. But th? languag? gradually chang? d? n b? th sid? s? f th? Atlantic, in? ngland as w? ll as in Am? rica. Th? n? w c? nditi? ns facing th? c? l? nists in Am? rica naturally caus? d chang? s in th? ir languag?. H? W? v? r, th? ? nglish n? w sp? k? n in Am? rica has r? tain? d a g ?? d many charact? ristics? f? arli? r? nglish that hav? n? t surviv? d in c? nt? mp? rary British? nglish.t? r? gard Am? rican? nglish as inf? ri? r t? British? nglish is t? impugn? arli? r standard? nglish as w? ll, f? r th? r? was d? ubtl? ss littl? diff? r? nc? at th? tim? ? f th? R? v? luti? n. Th? r? is a str? ng lik? lih ?? d, f? r instanc? , That G? ? rg? III and L? Rd C? Rnwallis pr? N? Unc? d aft? r, ask, danc? , Glass, path, and th? lik? ? xactly as G? ? rg? Washingt? N and J? Hn Hanc? Ck did-that is, as th? ? v? rwh? lming maj? rity? f Am? ricans d? t? this day, with [.] rath? r than th? [? ]? F pr? s? nt-day British.was similar with th? tr? atm? nt? f r, wh? s? l? ss b? f? r? c? ns? nants and paus? s (as in bird [b?: d] and burr [b ?:]) did n? t? ccur in th? sp ?? ch? f L? nd? n until ab? ut th? tim? ? f th? R? v? luti? n. M? St Am? ricans pr? n? unc? r wh? r? it is sp? ll? d b? caus? ? nglish sp? ak? rs in th? m? th? rland did s? at th? tim? ? f th? s? ttl? m? nt? f Am? rica.this as in much? ls? ,? sp? cially in pr? nunciati? n and grammar, Am? rican? nglish is,? n th? wh? l? , M? R? c? ns? rvativ? than British? nglish. Wh? n [r] was? v? ntually l? st in British? nglish? xc? pt b? f? r? v? w? ls, that l? ss was imp? rt? d t? th? ar? as that had th? m? st imm? diat? c? ntact with? ngland-th? p? rt citi? s? f B? st? n, N? w Y? rk, and Charl? st? n-and it spr? ad fr? m th? s? p? rts t? th? ir imm? diat? ar? as, but n? t? ls? wh? r?.
? th? r supp? s? d charact? ristics? f Am? rican? nglish ar? als? t? b? f? und in pr?-R? v? luti? nary British? nglish, and th? r? is v? ry g ?? d r? as? n ind ?? d f? r th? c? nclusi? n? f th? Sw? dish Anglicist? il? rt? kwall (Am? rican and British Pr? nunciati? n, 32-3) that, fr? m th? tim? ? f th? R? v? luti? n? n, Am? rican pr? nunciati? n has b ?? n? n th? wh? l? ind? p? nd? nt? f British; th? r? sult has b ?? n that Am? rican pr? nunciati? n has n? t c? m? t? shar? th? d? v? l? pm? nt und? rg? n? lat? r by Standard British. ? kwall s c? nc? rn is? xclusiv? ly with pr? nunciati? n, but th? sam? principl? appli? s als? t? many l? xical and grammatical charact? ristics [55, 240c.]. ? rican r? t? nti? n? f g? tt? n is an? xampl? ? f grammatical c? ns? rvatism. This f? Rm, th? usual past participl? ? f g? t in? ld? r British? nglish, surviv? s in pr? s? nt standard British? nglish mainly in th? phras? ill-g? tt? n gains; but it is v? ry much aliv? in Am? rican? nglish, b? ing th? usual past participial f? rm? f th? v? rb (f? r instanc?,? v? ry day this m? nth I v? g? tt? n spam? n my? -mail),? xc? pt in th? s? ns? s t? hav? and t? b? ? blig? d t? (f? r instanc?, H? hasn tg? t th? n? rv? t? d? it and Sh? sg? tt? h? lp us.). Similarly, Am? rican? nglish has k? pt fall f? r th? s? as? n and d? ck f? ra pack? f cards (th? ugh Am? rican? nglish als? us? s autumn and pack); and it has r? tain? d c? rtain ph? n? l? gical charact? ristics? f? arli? r British? nglish, discuss? d lat? r.w? rks b? th ways, h? w? v? r; f? r Am? rican? nglish has als? l? st c? rtain f? atur? s-m? stly v? cabulary it? ms-that hav? surviv? d in British? nglish. ? xampl? s includ? waistc? at (th? nam? f? ra...
