American and British English grammatical differences

Some of the most notable differences between American English and British English are grammatical.

Subject–verb agreement

In British English (BrE), collective nouns can take either singular (formal agreement) or plural (notional agreement) verb forms, according to whether the emphasis is on the body as a whole or on the individual members, respectively; compare a committee was appointed with the committee were unable to agree. The term the Government always takes a plural verb in British civil service convention, perhaps to emphasize the principle of cabinet collective responsibility.Instructions to Secretaries of Committees, Cabinet Office, nd Compare also the following lines of Elvis Costello's song "Oliver's Army": Oliver's Army is here to stay / Oliver's Army are on their way. Some of these nouns, for example staff, actually combine with plural verbs most of the time.

In American English (AmE), collective nouns are almost always singular in construction: the committee was unable to agree. However, when a speaker wishes to emphasize that the individuals are acting separately, a plural pronoun may be employed with a singular or plural verb: the team takes their seats, rather than the team takes its seats. Such a sentence would most likely be recast as the team members take their seats.Chapman, James A. Grammar and Composition IV. 3d ed. Pensacola: A Beka Book, 2002. With exceptions such as usage in The New York Times, the names of sports teams are usually treated as plurals even if the form of the name is singular."The names of sports teams, on the other hand, are often treated as plural regardless of the form of that name."

The difference occurs for all nouns of multitude, both general terms such as team and company and proper nouns (for example where a place name is used to refer to a sports team). For instance,

Verbs

Verb morphology

The past tense and past participle of the verbs learn, spoil, spell, burn, dream, smell, spill, leap, and others, can be formed with -t (learnt, spoilt, etc.) or with the regular -ed (learned, spoiled, etc.). In BrE, both irregular and regular forms are current, but for some words (such as smelt and leapt) there is a strong tendency towards the irregular forms. For other words (such as dreamed, leaned, and learned) the regular forms are somewhat more common.The t endings may be encountered frequently in older American texts, especially poetry. Usage may vary when the past participles are used as adjectives, as in burnt toast. (The two-syllable form learnèd , usually written without the accent, is used as an adjective to mean "educated" or to refer to academic institutions in both BrE and AmE.) Finally, the past tense and past participle of dwell and kneel are more commonly dwelt and knelt in both standards, with dwelled and kneeled as common variants in the US but not in the UK. Lit as the past tense of light is more common than lighted in the UK; American English uses lit to mean "set afire" / "kindled" / "made to emit light" but lighted to mean "cast light upon" (e.g., "The stagehand lighted the set and then lit a cigarette."). Conversely, British English favors fitted as the past tense of fit generally, whereas the preference of American English is more complex: AmE prefers fitted for the metaphorical sense of having made an object [adjective-]"fit" (i.e., suited) for a purpose; in spatial transitive contexts, AmE uses fitted for the sense of having made an object conform to an unchanged object that it surrounds (e.g., "fitted X around Y") but fit for the sense of having made an object conform to an unchanged object that surrounds it (e.g., "fit[-past] X into Y"); and for the spatial senses (both intransitive and transitive) of having been matching with respect to contour, with no alteration of either object implied, AmE prefers fit ("The clothes [past-]fit."; "The clothes [past-]fit me well."). The past tense of spit "expectorate" is spat in BrE, spit or spat in AmE. AmE typically has spat in figurative contexts, for example, "He spat out the name with a sneer", or in the context of expectoration of an object that is not saliva, for example, "He spat out the foul-tasting fish" but spit for "expectorated" when it refers only to the expulsion of phlegm or saliva. The past participle of saw is normally sawn in BrE and sawed in AmE (as in sawn-off/sawed-off shotgun). The past participle gotten is rarely used in modern BrE, which generally uses got except when fixed in old expressions such as ill-gotten gains and in the minority of dialects that retain the older form. The American dictionary Merriam-Webster, however, lists "gotten" as a standard past participle of "get." According to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, "The form gotten is not used in British English but is very common in North American English" AmE, but not BrE, has forgot as a less common alternative to forgotten for the past participle of forget. AmE further allows other irregular verbs, such as dive (dove) or sneak (snuck), and often mixes the preterite and past participle forms (spring–sprang, US also spring–sprung),Spring | Define Spring at Dictionary.comSpring - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary sometimes forcing verbs such as shrink (shrank–shrunk) to have a further form, thus shrunk–shrunken.Shrink | Define Shrink at Dictionary.comShrink - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary These uses are often considered nonstandard; the AP Stylebook in AmE treats some irregular verbs as colloquialisms, insisting on the regular forms for the past tense of dive, plead and sneak. Dove and snuck are usually considered nonstandard in Britain, although dove exists in some British dialects and snuck is occasionally found in British speech.

Use of tenses With words such as already and yet, simple past is more commonly used in American English while present perfect is more common in British English. In BrE, have got or have can be used for possession and have got to and have to can be used for the modal of necessity. The forms that include got are usually used in informal contexts and the forms without got in contexts that are more formal. In American speech the form without got is used more than in the UK, although the form with got is often used for emphasis. Colloquial AmE informally uses got as a finite verb for these meanings—for example, I got two cars, I got to go. In conditional sentences if clauses, US spoken usage often substitutes in the subordinate clause would and would have (usually shortened to [I]'d and would've) for the simple past and for the past perfect (If you'd leave now, you'd be on time. / If I would have [would've] cooked the pie we could have [could've] had it for lunch as opposed to If you left now, you'd be on time. / If I had cooked the pie we could have had it for lunch). This tends to be avoided in writing because it is often still considered non-standard although such use of would is widespread in spoken US English in all sectors of society. Some reliable sources now label this usage as acceptable US English and no longer label it as colloquial.Pearson Longman, Longman Exams Dictionary, grammar guide: It is possible to use would in both clauses in US English but not in British English: US: The blockades wouldn't happen if the police would be firmer with the strikers. Br: The blockades wouldn't happen if the police were firmer with the strikers. (There are situations where would is used in British English too in seemingly counterfactual conditions, but these can usually be interpreted as a modal use of would: If you would listen to me once in a while, you might learn something.) In cases in which the action in the if clause takes place after that in the main clause, use of would in counterfactual conditions is, however, considered standard and correct usage in even formal UK and US usage: If it would make Bill happy, I'd [I would] give him the money. The "present subjunctive" (morphologically identical with the bare infinitive) is regularly used in AmE in mandative clauses (as in They suggested that he apply for the job). In BrE, this usage declined in the 20th century in favor of constructions such as They suggested that he should apply for the job (or even, more ambiguously, They suggested that he applied for the job). However, the mandative subjunctive has always been used in BrE, especially in formal writing.

Verbal auxiliaries Shall is much more commonly used by the British than by modern-day Americans, who generally prefer will. Some prescriptions about the distinction exist, which are now esoteric in AmE. However shall is still common in American legal documents. Shan't is typically regarded by Americans as a stereotypical British construction; in AmE, it is almost invariably replaced by won't or am/are/is not going to or their contractions. In both British and American grammar, would and should have different meanings. However, in British grammar, it is also possible for should and would to have the same meaning, with a distinction only in terms of formality (should simply being more formal than would). For most Americans, this nuance has been lost, with would being used in both contexts;§ 57. should. 1. Grammar. The American Heritage Book of English Usage. 1996 for example, I should like to leave is no longer a formal way to say I would like to leave in modern AmE. Expressions like I should be happy to go are rather formal even in BrE. The periphrastic future "be going to" is about twice as frequent in AmE as in BrE. Use of "do" as a pro-predicate is almost exclusively British usage. Example: "Did Frank love it?" — "He must have done." The AmE response would be "He must have." omitting the form of "do". The BrE usage is commonly found with all forms of "do", for example:

Except in the negative, the initial pronoun may be omitted in informal speech.

Transitivity The following verbs show differences in transitivity between BrE and AmE: agree: Transitive or intransitive in BrE, usually intransitive (except with objective clauses) in AmE (agree a contract/agree to or on a contract, but I agree that this is a good contract in both). However, in formal AmE and BrE legal writing one often sees constructions such as as may be agreed between the parties (rather than as may be agreed upon between the parties). appeal (as a decision): Usually intransitive in BrE (used with against) and transitive in AmE (appeal against the decision to the Court/appeal the decision to the Court). catch up ("to reach and overtake"): Transitive or intransitive in BrE, strictly intransitive in AmE (to catch somebody up/to catch up with somebody). A transitive form exists in AmE, with a different meaning: to catch somebody up means that the subject will help the object catch up, rather the opposite of the BrE transitive meaning. cater ("to provide food and service"): Intransitive in BrE, transitive or intransitive in AmE (to cater for a banquet/to cater a banquet). cater to ("to allow for a possibility"): to cater to the speaker not turning up. A British speaker would probably recast the sentence. claim: Sometimes intransitive in BrE (used with for), strictly transitive in AmE.