DULL ENGLISH

Manawatu Times, Volume 61, Issue 194, 18 August 1936, Page 4

DULL ENGLISH

UR DAILY SPEECH

rr.CPESSOK’B

EMOTIONAL COLOUR LA 0

With the prefatory remark that ho intended to prick a bubble, Professor \V. A. Sewell, professor of English at the Auckland University, informed Auckland ltotarians that there was no such thing as correct speech.

It was a term that should not bo used, the speaker said, as ho asked what criterion should bo used. “Shall we take the King’s English?” he askod, and replied that tho late King in particuar spoke agreeably and well, but it was not the English that was generally regarded as “correct." it we sought a standard from wbat were termed educated people we would fail, as they talked differently, having been taught at different places.

STANDARD ATTACKED. Tho speaker proceeded to attack tho standard usually described as “correct speech,” claiming that it was the product of snobbery and as such it reflected a fundamental characteristic of tho English. The abrupt and well.dressed English of Noel . Coward would sound regrettable if used by children. Ho compared it with the lively and more plastic American speech, which, whilo it might provide many instances of vulgarity, was often sheer poetry. Tho speech of Mae West, ho said, was symptomatic of a section of Americau life, whereas the only well-known English actress whose speech could bo doscribed as expressivo of English life was Gracio Fields, who spoke a dialect. The speech of Mae West could not be dismissed as trivial; it was as significant as was Charlie Chaplin, who was more important in relation to twentieth century social life than was Mr Baldwin. “As for good speech of tho English stage, God forbid that it should bo taught to one’s children," said .Professor Sewell. “There is tho speech ot Noel Coward, for example. It is clipped, feeble, and decadent, however, full of charm it might be considered.'' Professor Sewell referred to the speech of tho actor Leslie Howard. This actor could never touch the emotions because he spoke too much like a gentleman. One could not imagine such men as Mr Noel Coward or Mr George Arliss reciting Lost." because they spoke the speech of people who would not let themselves feel deeply. It was a speech that did not lend itself to enthusiasm >r to new ideas. It was a Bpeech mat :ame down from dukes and duchesses and was taught and imitated by the /arious classes. It was essentially bad. >ecause it was being imitated. Ths teaching of such speech did normous psychological damage to the •hild. It was taught that one kind ot speech was better than another, but he was taught it abstractedly, it often caused a great deal of unhappiness and social inferiority because ot an inability by many persons to feel easy in a company that spoke it. With many young persons it represented a divorce from what was said and what they wanted to say. It was rooted inovitably and unfortunately in snobbery.

ELEMENT OF, SNOB BEET. There was no other element found in seeking for so-called "correct speech” than snobbery, said the professor. "If you listen to an Englisti travelogue over the radio,” declared the speaker, "and say you like it, 1 ask, ‘Why do you like it?' and if you analyse the position accurately, you will reply, ‘because I am a snob.’ ” Correct English, said Professor Sewell, was flat dull, effeminate, inexpressive, and incapable of expressing anger, (enthusiasm, pity and ouer emotions. The reason for this inexpressiveness was to bo found rooted in social conditions. Britain was from a social point of view more stable than any other country and there was no great upheaval compelling expression in its language. A great, and, he feared, a permanent loss was being sustained through the gradual disappearance of dialects from the English language. As an instance, the speaker quoted a Cockney as saying: "Blimey,’ ’o ain’t ’arf swank,” contrasting it with: "He’s not a little ostentatious, don’t you think?” In New Zealand, he stated, political turmoil had brought its reaction in the language. He quoted Mr Kobert Semple’s declaration that board members would have to get their running shoes, as an effective phrase responding to a political change. Unfortunately, concluded the speaker, there was not much wo could do to correct the bad effects of the stalemate in the language. So long as English society remained as at present it would continue charming, pleasant, sufficient (for most people), but lacking that creative potentiality Ahat was necessary in good conversa* tion.