Translating into American

Americanizing is editing a manuscript or book that originated somewhere in the English-speaking world other than the United States (most commonly, but not exclusively, the United Kingdom) to localize it for the US reader. The first step is spelling—changing “colour” to “color” and the like. If you think that’s all, or even the bulk, of the task, as many people seem to: well, no. Here's what I wish people (freelancers, I'm looking at you) knew about Americanization.

The precise tasks of Americanization vary with the book and its needs. (I should just get a great big blinking neon sign that says “the needs of the book and the reader” and “quality is what makes it worth paying for,” and that would pretty much cover everything I go on and on about. Not sure, however, it would make a difference.) In some cases, it might be appropriate to retain the British (or whatever) flavor of the text—for example, a novel by an English author and set in England, or a first-person narrative in which the author’s voice makes it personal and appealing. For those books, minimal Americanization—just enough to avoid distraction and clear up potential confusion—is all that’s required. At the opposite extreme might be a how-to book or other nonfiction title in which the object is to convey the information with transparency—that book must be completely clear to the US reader/user to be useful, so a complete overhaul for the US reader may be the order of the day. And there are a lot of books—fiction and nonfiction—in between.



First step is the easy stuff: spelling (as noted above—although it’s not as simple as all that: many people don’t realize that “towards” is British, “toward” is American, for one, and if you don't know that, you are not qualified to work for me) and of course punctuation. For example, in the US we use double quotes around dialog or quoted material, with single quotes for quoted material within a quotation that’s in double quotes. Even though some US readers are lazy in their own use of quotation marks (and abuse them shamelessly in the mistaken belief they supply emphasis—if you’re not quoting someone else, or wouldn’t use the term “so-called” in front of the quote-marked word or phrase, which makes it an implied quotation, you probably shouldn’t be using quotation marks—sign-makers, please take note!), an entire book with single quotes around dialog or material quoted from other people or sources will look odd and distracting to the US reader. The same is true for other differences in use of punctuation.

Then there are the nouns. In most cases, you’ll want to address potentially confusing names of things, e.g., if the writer uses “napkin” to mean a diaper or “pants” to mean underwear, the US reader will probably need some clarification that the author’s not talking about table linens and trousers; whether that clarification comes in the form of substitution of the commonly used US words or added clues in the context will depend on the nature of the book and the context in which the confusing terms are used. Whether you change a less confusing name (e.g., “lift” for “elevator”) will depend, again, on the needs of the book and readers, and the editor's vision for it in the US market.

Similarly, you may stet a product name if, in context, the foreign product is what makes sense: there is, after all, nothing quite like Marmite in the US. However, if understanding the text depends on knowing what Marmite is, a substitute may be called for. But not always: If a character has a “complexion the color of Marmite, and a personality just as strong,” the reader might find enough information in the text to infer the meaning--and what else would really capture it? But “mix until the texture is about like Marmite” is a useless instruction to anyone not familiar with Marmite.

This is especially pertinent in books about food and cooking. Ingredients have to be called what they’re commonly called in the country in which the book will be used, and quantities have to reflect the way the item is routinely sold. I think back on a childhood visit to family in England, when my aunt sent me to the store for lard. “Lard? What’s that?” I asked. “It’s shortening,” my grandmother clarified. I went to the store and searched for a can of lard—because I knew shortening came in a big can with “Crisco” on the label—and argued with the clerk when she insisted what I needed was a brick about the size of a pound of butter.

Similarly, measurements in a cookbook (or craft book, etc., for that matter) must be converted to the local norm. Most US cooks measure in cups, rather than liters. But will the book also be sold in Canada? Then both measures are usually given. The same is true for other figures that the reader will have to use. The Americanizer may or may not be responsible for calculating the conversions, but if not, s/he is still responsible for noting where they are needed.

Other figures may or may not have to be converted or replaced, again depending on the needs of the book. If an author tells the reader that a medieval nobleman’s holdings are equivalent to a net worth of some number of pounds today, is that meaningful to the US reader? If you’ve bothered to Americanize the spellings, are you really expecting your reader to look up what the pound is worth in dollars and do the arithmetic to understand whether the nobleman would be rich or not today? On the other hand, if relative worth isn’t the point, the decision about whether to provide conversions or replacements may be based on the tone, content, and context of the book and what the author is trying to convey.

Which is what drives a lot of the decisions one makes in Americanizing. “Among” is American usage; “amongst” is chiefly British. (And I shouldn't have to tell you that.) If the author is British, and the goal is to preserve his or her voice, so the reader is hearing an English accent in his or her mind's ear, you might stet “amongst.” However, if that’s not important, you’d probably change it. And however (again), if it’s dialog, and the person speaking the dialog would have said “amongst,” there’s no reason to make the speaker into an American.

You might want to make the narrator into an American, if the narrative voice is meant to be essentially transparent to the reader. There are obvious differences between US English and the versions spoken and written elsewhere in the English-speaking world—like colloquial expressions and the aforementioned differences in specific terms—and subtle ones, like how “that” and “which” are used. There are also cultural differences that may be reflected in the language. Even the rhythm may differ. How much of that stays and how much must go is a decision—again—that depends on the needs of the book and its readers. Oh, and it's never your job to rewrite the book. You are not a coauthor. (Hm, might have to add that to the blinking neon sign, too.)

And of course the Americanizer is beholden to other sets of needs: those of whomever is paying him or her. That is usually a publisher, and the staff there will have a vision for the book, a view of its and its readers’ needs, which must be conveyed to the Americanizer.

If that doesn’t happen, yeah, what you get is spell-check Americanization. Why even bother?