Cristina Portillo Martnez

Meaning and Cognition Seminar

1
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
SCOTTO DI CARLO, G., Lexical Differences Between American And British English: A Survey
Study. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS: Linguistics and Literature Vol. 11, No 1, 2013, pp. 1 - 11
Current developments in user-oriented software have softened the path towards empirical research for
many researchers within the Human and Social Sciences, making it easier to carry out statistical
analysis. However, this apparent easiness takes for granted a theoretical and mathematical knowledge
that is not always present in the resulting papers. This review comments on the procedure followed by
the author of the article mentioned above, raising some methodological issues.
To start with, Scotto di Carlo states that her aim is to analyze reciprocal comprehension between
American and British English native speakers (pg. 1), and in order to achieve this objective she uses a
questionnaire with a series of lexical items. However, there are certain concerns as regards the whole
procedure, and the most important one is the total lack of references to previous research. This is
crucial, as we know that science is not an isolated activity, and that each piece of research should be
related to previous work in the field in order to be considered truly scientific. In this particular case, a
mention to other similar studies would be expected, with a brief comment on the main results and a
justification about the way in which this new study would add to the whole scientific corpus.
As regards the Introduction section, only a reference to The Cambridge History of English Language
is mentioned to support the idea of American and British English cleavage. Although this is not
objectable in itself, some other quotations related to the empirical nature of the study would be
expected to help the reader understand how and why the presented questionnaire would contribute to
the answer of the research question. Moreover, in the subsequent paragraphs some important
affirmations are found without no scientific support at all, as we can observe (pg.2):
Although spoken American and British English are generally mutually
intelligible, there are enough differences to cause misunderstandings or even a
complete failure of communication.
American English is used as a lingua franca or a second language by people in
many parts of the world, including East Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the
Philippines, and China); the Americas (excluding the former British colonies
Canada, Jamaica, and the Bahamas), and Liberia, in Africa.
Although differences do not involve formal terminology, misunderstandings are
possible in everyday life language
Cristina Portillo Martnez
Meaning and Cognition Seminar



2
Additionally, the section about Historical Context provides some facts about the lexical divergence
between American and British English and but again with no background scientific information. This
lack of references is one of the most serious drawbacks found in the paper, as there is no analysis or
contrast with previous similar findings relevant to the problem and the few references cited come from
secondary sources. Another unattended aspect is that of the global evolution of the English language,
taking into consideration just American and British English while completely ignoring any other
varieties such as the ones spoken in Australia, India, South Africa and so on. This constitutes an
additional significant flaw, making it impossible to generalize the results by relating them to more
general topics such as theories of language contact or linguistic variational processes.
The third section, titled Lexical Differences Between American and British English leaves the
historical arena to bring about lexical issues. Scotto di Carlo classifies and explains some of the
linguistic divergences in vocabulary, which will be used later on to account for the items included in
the questionnaire. Once more, the lexical lists are presented and organized with no mention to any
previous theory or research. In this type of study, for instance, some reference to theories of linguistic
variation would be expected, although the author seems to consider her own word warrant enough for
the accuracy of her empirical research, with the only support of classical writers such as 18
th
century
poet Alexander Pope.
The Method section reveals a certain concern from the writers side as regards this general lack of
scientificity, as Scotto di Carlo states that the research has no presumption of generalization, because
of the limited sample made up of 50 respondents for each variety (pg.7). However, the paper goes on
without any additional background, and this general lack of accuracy also affects the method and
results. To start with, the sample is described in terms of several variables: age, sex, occupation, level
of education, and whether they had ever been to Great Britain or had British friends (pg.7), although
there is no mention to what kind of influence these may have on the results. Once more, some previous
studies would be expected to account for the relationship between these variables and lexical
knowledge, but the author does not seem to consider any additional source necessary, in line with the
rest of the procedure.
Next, some data regarding the participants ages and occupation are presented in tables 1 and 2 (pg. 8),
and these show some important problems. As regards the age table, it is designed in an obscure and
unorganized fashion which makes it difficult to understand. The information found under the name of
Data Analysis is just a description of the participants characteristics, but with no relation or
comparison of any kind among them.
Cristina Portillo Martnez
Meaning and Cognition Seminar



3
The results of the survey are presented directly in page 9 under the format of a table with the absolute
number of correct answers for the American and British groups, with no mention of the previous
variables considered. No additional statistical measures or analysis instruments have been applied in
order to guarantee the procedure or the results quality, and this seems to be the third crucial pitfall
found. No rationale has been given for the selection of the measurements, and no justification can be
found to justify the method followed.
Concerning the instrument, no description of how it was designed is found. The author seems to judge
it unnecessary to explain the procedures involved in the development of the questionnaire or the
validation procedures performed. When working with a specific instruments, detailed information
about the criterion followed to select the lexical items evaluated and their relation to the participants
sociocultural characteristics would be expected, as a American teenager of 11 may not know the terms
chicory/endiveor braces/suspenders, for instance, and the fact that this is due to his being
American/English should be theoretically grounded. The results are presented directly, with no
mention to the tabulating or interpretation system applied. These facts affect another key aspect of any
empirical study, replicability, making it impossible for other researchers to conduct similar surveys
and contrast the results.
Finally, the author comes to the following conclusion although with no reference to the results of the
study. Some kind of numerical measures would be expected to ground this kind of statements, but
once again Scotto di Carlo does not seem to find them necessary:
Therefore, it can be said that only a direct contact with the other language or a
specific study on the differences can improve mutual intelligibility between the
two varieties of English, where their differences would be accepted and
respected.
To conclude, the application of numerical or statistical methods to simply adorn a paper with some
scientific flavour but without the necessary theoretical grounding is a certain temptation for anyone
trying to publish. The reviewed paper is a good example of the main possible flaws in which an author
may incur when writing. First, regarding the Introduction and Background Information, there is an
alarming lack of references, showing little respect for the work of the scientific community. Advances
in science are possible mainly due to the replicability and contrastability of the studies and their
results, and this is a basic tenet each researcher should take into account when conducting any kind of
experiment. Secondly, the study itself is linked to no theory at all, invalidating this paper as a scientific
product, as it cannot be related to any corpus of scientific work. Finally, the instruments and method
applied are totally inaccurate and inefficient, consisting of just a series of figures whose main purpose
Cristina Portillo Martnez
Meaning and Cognition Seminar



4
seems to be just filling sheets of paper but without any mathematical or logical progression at all,
making it impossible to replicate or compare the results with any other study.
In sum, this article has the appearance of scientific material but is not, and publishers would be
expected to conduct more detailed peer or expert reviews. By publishing these types of study, the
whole Human and Social Sciences result affected and judged as non-rigorous disciplines, and
therefore not only writers, but also publishers, should show some more respect towards the accurate
and detailed work that thousands of people are performing daily throughout the world. It seems hard to
believe that this kind of paper could be found nowadays under the name of any apparently serious
publication.