linguistic puzzlers

[kindkit]

I'm reading John Le Carré's latest, A Delicate Truth, and I'm finding a lot of what look like Americanisms in the text. It's bugging me because I don't know if (a) some language was changed for the American edition, (b) it's just that American expressions increasingly creep into British English, or (c) Le Carré is using them deliberately to make points about his characters.

If the text was Americanized by the US publisher, it's been done very inconsistently. On the one hand, "pants" is used in the American sense (Br.Eng. = trousers); on the other, "fairy lights" is left untranslated.

Have I mentioned that I hate it when British books are Americanized by US publishers? I am not a ten-year-old reading Harry Potter; I'm not going to put the book down in frustration if I encounter an unfamiliar phrase.

Does anyone know if US books are Anglicized/Australianized for those markets? Or is US cultural hegemony strong enough that they're left unchanged even though the reverse isn't true?

Comments

[likeadeuce]

I don't have a good answer, but I remember always being thrown when I saw references to 'soccer' in the Dalziel & Pascoe books. As far as I know, that name for the sport hasn't gained currency in the UK, and furthermore it doesn't even MATTER in most of the casual references, what sport is being referred to. So I just ended up being distracted wondering whether changes had been made. (I'd think anybody who somehow didn't know what 'football' means to a Brit right off the bat would probably realize they'd be unlikely to be watching an American football game on television...)

[lilacsigil]

I've never seen US books modified for local audiences, not even when locally re-published by an Australian or British publisher. I remember reading YA books filled with all kinds of words I didn't understand: subways, bodegas, automobiles, hockey (with no qualifier) played on ice, braids, bangs.

[joatamon]

It's already been said by another commenter, I know, but American books aren't anglicized (for British audiences, at least), which I have always liked. This, plus marinating in TV/film and then fic, is how I learned enough American to write America-based fic myself, although it also means I have difficulties Brit-picking other people's stories because it's fuzzied my ability to spot Americanisms. It's also changed my speech patterns. I now use the word 'awesome' unironically.

I've never thought of it as cultural hegemony, I must admit, although you're right. If you mention the Americanisation of Britlit over here, I think the general assumption would be that it's because Americans are stupid/ignorant/insular/pick your offensive stereotype. I remember laughing when I first learned about the American versions of Harry Potter, back in the day.

[joatamon]

Actually (sorry to be spamming your journal) I've given this a little more thought (interesting topic!) and I'm not sure that it's US cultural hegemony at all, unless, say, Australia has cultural hegemony too, because their stuff isn't translated into Anglo-English in the UK either, and actually translated stuff (the Stieg Larsson novels for example) will have British spelling, but won't be anglicized.

So I think this is about the blinkeredness of US publishers and broadcasters and media producers. For whatever reason, they think that the US public can't handle the truth non-Americanized material, which is why so many books (and TV shows and films: Stieg Larsson again) are Americanized. Because apparently Americans can't cope with non-American concepts, or subtitles o_O

Tl;dr - American publishers are patronising?