OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23044, 21 November 1936, Page 4

OUR MOTHER TONGUE

RANDOM NOTES By Professor Arnold Wall NEW ZEALAND SPEECH During my residence of 36 years in New Zealand I have seen more rubbish in print on the subject of New Zealand speech than on any other. Again and again I have seen published “ interviews ” giving the opinions of teachers and others whose own pronunciation was to my knowledge very bad. ' There are two sorts of badness in speech, which ought not to be confused. A sound or a manner of speaking may be bad in itself, essentially bad, or it may be merely bad in relation to a standard. Slurred, indistinct articulation is bad in itself, so is a harsh nasal drawl; while such a pronunciation as “peound” for “pound” is only bad because it does not conform to standard. Even the vulgar dropped “ h ” is not essentially bad; the French have dropped it completely, though they retain it in their' spelling. My experience as a resident in and near London from 1879 to 1896 (including my school days) enables me to sfty with certainty that nearly all the faults of speech are those of middle class Cockney, which was spoken by about 90 per cent, of my schoolfellows. I myself acquired it from them and had to unlearn it later on. The same is true of Australia, but in the case of every fault it may be said with truth that Australians sin more grievously than we do. I have visited all the main cities in Australia with my ears open, and I happen to have close relations in Western Australia and in Tasmania. In respect of one of the worst faults —“ mike ” for “ make ” —the Australians practically have the field to themselves, while their “ cowld ” for “ cold ” is far more distressing than ours. It is probable that in both countries ft majority of the teachers and perhaps of the settlers, too, hailed from London and the Home counties. GIRLS v. BOYS It has been observed here, as it has been at Home, that the speech of girls is far less faulty than that, of boys, and the explanation offered there is that girls as a class are more alive to the “social value” of good speech than boys. Boys apparently scorn to speak well, and think it more manly to be rough. This feeling accords with the general tendency to despise (with an effort) a “ gentleman,” and I have heard it maintained that “a good accent” rather tells against a young man starting in the business world of New Zealand. “Not once,” they seem to reflect, Not one, nor twice, in our rough island story, The murdered vowels strewed the path to glory. FAULTS IN DETAIL My space will not admit a full statement of the faults in question, but I may mention the most striking and most objectionable, using perforce a very rough and ready spelling. The prevalent harsh, raucous, nasal tone which disfigures the speech of so many boys cannot, of course, be indicated by spelling at all. The following are Cockney marks:— “ Keow ” foe “ cow,” sometimes, as in America, spelt “ kaow.” I well remember, a schoolfellow bringing the “heouse” “deown” with his rendering of “ sixteen eounces one peound ” even in a class of Cockney boys. This is bad in relation to the standard. “ Cowld ” for “ cold,” far worse in Australia, as has been remarked. Bad in relation to the standard. “ Lice ” for “ lace,” again far worse in Australia, and really not very prevalent here. It is bad in relation to the standard, but the spelling with “ i ” or “ y ” does not well represent the sound. “ Moil,” or rather “ mawl,” for “mile,” exactly as represented in the Cockney speech in the early plays of G. B. Shaw. This usually exhibits a greater or less degree of nasality and is so far bad in itself, not only in respect of the standard.. “Seolf” for “self,” again as in Shaw’s Cockneys. “ Eolth ” for “health” is one of his examples. This is only bad as not being standard, and the same diphthong was developed by the Anglo-Saxons and spelt in the same way. “ Beoots ” and “ Sheoos.”—This is very characteristic Cockney and is very prevalent here, though a visitor to Auckland in 1887 remarked it as less so than in Australia. It is only bad in relation to standard but it is insidious and I have observed it in speakers whose pronunciation was otherwise excellent. If any reader should be tempted to throw brickbats at me for declaring that the faulty speech of New Zealand, where it is faulty, is Cockney, I am ready to screen myself behind others. Alexander Ellis in his

monumental “ Early English Pronunciation” (a title which does not well describe the scope of the work) says: “In the Australian and New Zealand Colonies . . . there is more than a trace of what is commonly called Cockney.” M'Burney, who was Principal of the Ladies’ College, Geelong, made a study of popular speech in both Australia and New Zealand in 1887, and he says the same thing in a long .article which’ was published in the Lyttelton Times in that year. LOCAL FAULTS The following seem to be peculiarities of local origin. Final “i” or “y” as “ee,” “ dirtee,” etc. I have dealt with this in a previous note. It is bad in .relation to the standard and is almost universal in the younger generation. M'Burney, in 1887, noticed it in all four centres, and says that his attention had been drawn to it as a colonial peculiarity by two Englishmen. Long “ a,” as in “ car,” pronounced as the “ a ” of “ hat ” but lengthened. No symbol in our alphabet will represent this sound, but it is nearer to “ care ” to “ car.” It is again bad only in relation to the standard. M'Burney noticed it _ especially in Auckland in the newspaper boys selling the Star. “It had,” he says, “a strange effect.” Dulling of “i,” especially before “1” as in “milk” and when unstressed as in “ mallet ” pronounced so as to rhyme with “ ballot.” This is, I think, bad in itself for it is careless and slovenly; I have dealt with it in an earlier note. In making ■ this little indictment I am not relying solely on my own memory of Cockney speech, but also on the studies of this form of English, with phonetic symbols in some cases, by Tuer (1883), Baumann (1887), Hallam (1886), and Goodchild (about 1888). In none of these can I find any sign of the three peculiarities above described as probably of local origin. I need hardly say that what has been said here of the faults of New Zealand speech applies only to those who speak badly. I have had exceptional opportunities and am glad to be able to testify that plenty of the young people of both sexes whose speech I have heard daily for months have spoken exactly as if they had been born and brought up in England. In some cases I knew that they had “picked up” their good speech from their teachers, whether unconsciously or deliberately, and this was especially noticeable in girls. ’ \ 1 ' I would ask a final question of those who think that’ there is not and ought not to ;be a: “ standard.” Do they - really want the young people .to say, as l and others have heard them say,. “I know lie..done it cos I seen him”; or, with the labourer in an -old Punch, “Ain't none o’ you chaps seen no pipe knocking about in none of these’ere’ sheds nowheres? ”' and would . they be content to’see the speech of New Zealand of the future, built upon such foundations? I would not have it thought that I lay too much stress on this detail of “good speech” a. a part of the make-up of the New Zealander; I am fully aware of its comparative unimportance. I remember how, at the ’outbreak of the war in 1914, seeing that young students whose speech left much to be desired yet died gloriously on Gallipoli, I told myself that I must never criticise New Zealand speech unkindly, and, in making the above statement, I; have borne this resolution carefully, in mind. '