THAT AUSTRALIAN ACCENT

Evening Star, Issue 23745, 28 November 1940, Page 13

THAT AUSTRALIAN ACCENT

> — DISAGREEMENT ON CAUSES VARIETY OF EXPLANATIONS The opinion that Australians have a way of sneaking, an “ accent ” of their own, is by no means new. For half a century or more oversea observers have been pondering the complexities of our speech habits, but the most outstanding feature of their comments to date has been an entire lack of unanimity as to bow or why Australians have developed a dialect (writes Sidney J. Baker, in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’). Only this year Dr Halliday Suthcrland suggested that pollen in the air was responsible! Other writers have put it down to lingual laziness, to inbcritance from Cockneys, to climate, or to the fusion of English dialects in this country.

J. A. Froude, in his ‘Oceana’ (1873) said that we have no dialectal peculiarities at all. “ The first thing that struck me was the pure English spoken in Australia,” ho wrote. “No provincialism has yet developed itself,” In 1912 another observer, M. C. Donald, said; “ I do not think I am incorrect in saying . . . that the masses of Australia speak more intelligibly and grammatically than those of the old world.” On the debit side must be put the allusion to “ the colonial twang in the speech ” by 11. H. Horne in 1859, and sundry references to Cockney elements. “ The London mode of pronunciation has been duly ingrafted on the colloquial dialect "of our Currency youths,” wrote P. Cunningham in 1826, and 26 years later S. Mossman spoke of ” the Cockney drawl of the hucksters, selling fish and fruit (which) sounds so refreshing on the ear—so thoroughly English.” Short work of the supporters of the “Cockney theory ” was made by •). Foster Fraser in his ‘ Australia, the .Making of a Nation,’ published in 1910. While admitting that certain features of Cockney speech could be observed in

Australia, he dc “To say that t Cockney is just oj tions which the m right to repudiate tralian struck m clean speaker; tin out the slovenline plenty in England pronunciation.” To say that Co were inherited ft vvas abeurd ; he at lief is that it is an partly due to din to carelessness in Here is the crux I was in Cornwall extraordinary simi Cornish speech si Americans. To American drawl a been inherited, ev West of England, ridiculous. They c as independent gr A feature of G mutilation of con; to become “ barf, “ Sa’erdoe,” the entirely. No sue

'eel a res forthrightly: all Australians talk ne of those exaggeranass of people have a fce. The grown Ansae as a particularly tat is, ho spoke withess of which we have d, and with a correct ockney characteristics tom London settlors dded. “My own bei independent growth, nate, but mainly due . speech.” c of the matter. When 1 I was struck by the nlarity between many sounds and those of suggest that the and nasalisation have von in part, from the 1, however, would be can bo regarded solely rowths. Cockney speech is the isonants. Bath tends Saturday becomes “t ” disappearing ch mutilation occurs

in Australia, or seldom. The only similarity between Australian and Cockney speech is in certain vowel sounds. The most usually quoted examples are the diphthongs “ ow ” and “ ay.” But there is something more in dialect than this. Dr Thomas Wood, author of ‘ Cobbers,’ declares that the Cockney voice is husky and throaty, while the average Australian voice is thin and toneless. THE " NATIVE ” INFLUENCE. The question as to how similarities have arisen obviously needs solution. In the multitude of theories that have been given to date, no attention has been paid to the effect of native languages in Australasia. It may be stated, without hesitation, that no Englishman is obliged to use so many diphthongs and so few final vowels in his everyday speech as are we. It is necessary only to consider the tens of thousands of native names given to towns, suburbs, streets, homes, horses, ships, etc., to appreciate that the sheer weight of them must have some effect on our speech habits. For instance, more than 57 per cent, of

place-names in New Zealand are Maori —that is, they end with a vowel. Of the 700-odd aboriginal place names in New South Wales, more than 70 per cent, end with a vowel. Names like Cowra, Adiinbilly, Bilarong, Murrumbidgee, Tjcumwal, and Umberumberka have no counterpart in English speech. It is necessary only to recite a few dozen of them to appreciate that the voice naturally tends to become thin and toneless in saying them. English nuances are bound to be lost when confronted with these new elements. It must be regarded as something more than a mere accident that Australians should tend to use the hard palate, and that the pecularities of their accent should coincide so closely with features in native speech. There is, of course, a flat nasal intonation that has earned the Australian accent a bad name. Just as there is a vast chasm between Cockney speech and the educated southern English dialect which is generally regarded as “ standard ” speech, so there is developing in this country an educated and a vulgar speech—both of which contain dialectal peculiarities of our own, and both of which are assuredly

recognisable as distinct from souther® English speech. Clear Australian is ' nothing w* need be ashamed of,” said the Federal Talks Controller, Mr B. H. Molesworth, recently. That view is worth studying. The emergence of an Australian dialect is a natural accompaniment of Australia’s geographical destiny, both from the point of view of environment and of the fact that wa are 12,000 miles from England. One of the most logical statement* yet made on our accent comes from Professor W. K. Hancock, who declares : “ Those teachers who struggle against the common curse of debased English would do better to develop the resources of this legitimate accent rather than attempt the imnos* siblc task of impressing upon scoffing pupils Oxford English thrice removed.”