Defects in Speech

Hawera Star, Volume LI, 3 January 1931, Page 9

Defects in Speech

TT is commonly supposed that the main difference between the normal language of tliis country and that, of the United States is a matter of vocabulary. When we speak of “Americanisms” we are usually thinking of the coinage of new words and the employment of old words in new senses. Actually, diversities of pronunciation present at least as great a hindrance co mutual understanding, as any Englishman soon discoters if lie goes shopping in a Now York store. It was high time for an attempt to be made to analyse and codify these variations between English and American usage —a task which has now been undertaken and successfully carried out. by Messrs Thorlief Larsen and Francis C. Walker, one of whom is a graduate of Toronto and Oxford and the other a Harvard I’h.D. Their book is written from the American standpoint, and is evidently based upon accurate and alert observation—if that is a correct word to use of the exercise of the faculty of hearing—supplemented by a study of the riiost important works on general linguistics and phonetics. In their preface the authors express their obligations to Professors G. P. Krapp and Daniel Jones, and the help they have derived from Mr W. H. Fowler’s ‘Modern English Usage,” is also fully, acknowledged. They do not address themselves tr. phoneticians, but have written for the instruction of the American layman who is conscious of defects in his pronunciation and wishes to correct them. In particular, this volume is designed to help American students, among whom there is ‘“widespread ignor anee and uncertainty” in such matters. But beyond any doubt it will admirably serve the secondary purpose of providing those English leaders who are inteiested in linguistic changes with an authoritative account, hitherto lacking of the most notable peculiarities of pronunciation in vogue on the other side of the Atlantic.

In the earlier section of the book its authors call attention to certain general defects of speech which they find especially prevalent -in America. Among those are an excessive use of the higher tones of the voice, careless articulation, drawling and nasMity. They then consider in elaborate detail the pronunciation of tnc ind-vidua l vowels and consonants. 1 his exposition occupies the greater pari of the volume and includes many illustrative lists of words, with notes of variations between English and American practice. ‘Every word mentioned in these lists is separately recorded in the index, which is thus mov. helpful for I( vf crc , m . o . The particulars given here will enable English readers to understand many otherwise puzzling statements that they meet from time to time in the American Press. For example, when a I hilaclelplua paper, in its humorous

English and American

Some Interesting Comparisons

column, represents some one as saying “Here ’s a father clover little book, ‘Font 's for Clubmen’ ” and his friend as remarking “‘Hull! It isn’t the ‘dont’s* that worry clubmen; it’s the dues, ” most Englishmen will fail to see any point in this comment, even when they are informed that the American ‘ ‘ club dues ’ is equivalent to the English !“club subscription.” The mystery is cleared up when one learns that in America “dues” is pronounced as ‘dooz. ” An understanding of this peculiarity of the American pronunciation of “u” is similarly essential to a perfect appreciation of a limerick by Carolyn Wells, which runs:—

A tutor who tooted the flute Tried to tutor two tooters to toot

Said the two to the tutor, “It. is harder to toot, or To tutor two tooters to toot?”

Curiously enough, while such full information is supplied respecting words, there is no mention of the fact that the alphabet itself offers an instance of diversity in pronuncia. tion. Its last letter, which Englishmen call “zed,” is called “zee” in America.

One interesting linguistics development to which this book calls attention is that in America —the same tendency, by the way, may be observed to some degree in England—the spread of the reading habit is having a marked effect upon pronunciation. People are naturally inclined to pronounce an unfamiliar word as it is spelt. Even familiar words, such as “often” and “forehead,” are apt to be so pronounced owing to the mistaken notion that clear articulation means giving full value to every letter rather than to every sound. In 'America, where long tradition in such matters is necessarily lacking, this is especially noticeable in “clerk” and in proper names such as “Berkeley,” ‘ ‘ Berksli i re, ‘ ‘ Derby, ” “ Hertford, ’ ’ “Harwich’ and' “Greenwich.” Words taken over from the French are particularly liable to be treated in this fashion. Mr Larsen and Mr Walker mention the sounding of the final “t” in “trait,” but have omitted to record that the same thing has happened to “restaurant.” They should also have noted that in the United States the first, syllable of “lieutenant” is pronounced as “lieu” —or, rather “loo.” The “rowt” pronunciation of ‘route” is rriven here as dialectic, but there is reason to doubt whether its use is thus limited. French proper names suffer a terrible fate in America—almost as distressing as the English transformation of “Ypres” in “Wipers.” French visitors are shocked at discovering that full value is given to the final “s” of “St. Louis,” and that “Terre Haute’ in Indiana, is commonly called “'Terry Hut.” The writer of this review once aslccd a Neve York car conductor to set him down at Desbrosses -Street. Having

used the French pronunciation, lie was not understood until a fellowpassenger suggested that perhaps he meant Dezbrossez Street.

Mot the least important difference between English and American pronunciation is in the incidence of the accent. This book mentions “‘advertisement,- ’ “ corrolla.ry, ” “subaltern,’ - “address,” and many other examples, but there are several omissions —e.g., “inquiry,” “croquet,” “eczi ma," “opponent,” “aristocrat ” and • < research. ’ ’ What constitutes the principal American variation from English usage, however, is not the placing of the stress upon a different syllable, but the practice of giving a secondary stress where there is none in England. “In English speech,” says the authors of this volume,

there is a tendency to place a very heavy stress upon accented syllables, land in consequence unstressed vowels ! are either reduced to obscure sounds or ! elided altogether. American speech, on i the other hand, is more slow and deliberate. The stresses are levelled out, and all syllables have almost the same value, with the result that unstressed vowels are not. obscured to the same | extent as they arc in 'English speech, and in long words syllables which in I English speech are edided altogether i receive secondary stress, i Every Cook’s conductor in the Brij tish Isles must have noticed that our j American visitors speak of ‘‘Birmingham, * ’ “.Cornwall,” “Devonshire” and “Westminster” as though they I were “Binning 'Ham,” “Corn Wall,” j “Devon Shire” and “ West Minister.” j Tliere is a similar levelling of stresses in “.1 apa n, ” ‘I T n ited States ’ ’ and j “Europe,” which, on the lips of an i American, sound like “.Tap Ann.” j Our authors suggest that it was this 1 peculiarity of American speech that Dickens had in mind when he represented the American pronunciation of “consider” and “location” as consider” and 10-cation.” They note also I that in many words ending in “-arv” •and “-orv”—for example, “military” and “territory”—-American speakers i give a secondary' stress to the pennljiimate syllable and therefore full lvalue to its vowel.

This tendency to heavy stressing, we are reminded, is closely connected with what. Mr Larsen and iMr Walker consider “the greatest difference between English and American speech ” —namely, that “the Englishman uses a greater variation in pitch than the American.” “It is this fact,” they add, “that gives to the speech of the Englishman its unmistakable qualify.” The general effect, was happily described some years ago by a writer in the Landmark when he. said that “an American’s words often seem to be driven in like nails with an aggros, sive purpose,” whereas “an Englishman's float as on waves with a conscious pleasure in the careless rise and fall.”