'Little' and 'small' in British vs American English

Is the preference for 'little' over 'small' one of the things that differentiates British from American English?

I find expressions like "I'm only little" or "She's only little" in British children books. This is something new to me. Are these also common in American English?

I am not a native English speaker, but I guess I am more accustomed to American English. I would have said "She's still very small" instead.

I think that rather than a difference between dialects of English, there is a difference in meaning. Small and little are not always synonymous (see this thread and this BBC page for more general discussions). Generally speaking, small tends to be more literally about size while little can be more metaphoric.

In the case of a child, small refers directly to the child's size. A small child is one whose size or height is small. A little child more directly evokes the child's youth. The two can be synonymous, because age is strongly correlated with size, but they carry different connotations. I would expect a child to say “I'm only little”, implying primarily that they are young, rather than “I'm only small”. On the other hand, a child might say “I'm small, I can squeeze through”, perhaps more than “I'm little, I can squeeze through” (though the sentence with little is also idiomatic).

Comparing “only a little child” with “only a small child” in British English and American English doesn't reveal a significant difference between the sides of the Atlantic. It does show evolution over time: small was practically unheard of in the 19th century and is now on par with little.

A related adjective is short. It relates directly to the person's height, and tends to imply short for their age.

AmE Ngram:, BrENgram:

shows no real preference in usage between the two terms in BrE and AmE. What appears is a convergence in usage of both terms. Little used to be more popular both in UK and US till a few decades ago.

According to this source:

In comparative and superlative form, small is more common in British English, and little is more common in American English.

• That's the smallest phone I've ever seen - more common in British English

• That's the littlest phone I've ever seen - more common in American English

Source: http://www.eslbase.com/grammar

According to Google Ngram, at the very least, in both British English and American English, the relative incidences of the two words seem identical.

So, no, the use of little vs small does not seem to be one of the differences between British and American English.

As a native speaker of British English (or real-english to be obtuse) I would agree with both the posts of Vality and Gilles but would note, specifically in the run example, that the reference between little and short has been missed.

I would say "I went for a little run" or more likely I went for a "short run" as this is denoting either distance or time.

People can be 'short' denoting height e.g. "he was too short to ride the roller-coaster"; 'little' denoting age or frame i.e. a "little old lady" again, may be endearing; or 'small' e.g. "he was only small" again referring to frame, perhaps a little more 'frank' - i.e. more plain speaking than to refer to someone as 'little'.

The quote you mention refers to a child, thus the use of 'little' makes sense as a term of endearment.

edit: I would also add that in your example 'She's still very small' you've introduced a concept of time. If you said 'She's very small' that would be fine. It feels odd that you've added 'still' as this suggests that she should be something different. i.e. Are you expecting her to be bigger, taller or larger?

NOTE: I would have added this as a comment, but do not currently have the rep to post as such...