CORRECT PRONUNCIATION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3773, 6 July 1926, Page 65

CORRECT PRONUNCIATION.

“ABOMINABLE OXFORD' VOICE.” CAMPAIGN AGAINST “REFAINMENT. (From Oub Own Correspondent.) LONDON, May 4. What occurred In New Zealand some 25 years ago seems to be occurring in London to-day. It will be remembered how, when the public dramatic and elocution competitions started, people found they had been mangling the English language in a most deplorable way. At least, bo a certain gentleman led us to believe. Having set himself up as critic, he had a very salutary effect on all people, professional and amateur, who dared to speak the English language from the stage in song or poem. Those long lists of mispronounced words which he published in his monthly Journal must have done much to standardise the spoken language in New Zealand. Now in London a man from Belfast, with a slight Irish accent, and who speaks as though he had just learned elocution and does not disguise the technicalities he has got from his instruction, is carrying on a campaign against the Oxford accent and mispronunciation generally. This is Mr St. John Ervine, the playwright, who writes the dramatio criticisms for the Sunday Observer and the Morning Post. It must be admitted that he is doing a good work. "Retained" English is obtained in the first place by an absolute mutilation of vowel sounds, and secondly by a restriction of the throat muscles brought about in direct response to an absurd mental attitude of superiority. Strange to say, this "retained" English is seldom found amongst politicians and public mtn, though most of them have been brought fcp where the English language le eo mutilated. The fact is that English public life la the best school for humility, and humility brings with it a normal pronunciation.

At the School of Economics a day or two ago a debate was arranged between Mr Si. John Ervine and Mr Nigel Playfair. Mr Playfair is a well-known actor and theatrical manager. Incidentally, he is a B.A. of Oxford. He speaks perfectly good English with ease and without affectation. It was very interesting, therefore, to hear these two authorities speak on the subject of "Do We Know How to Prounonce English?" Miss Irene Vanbrugh occupied the chair. Naturally, if two people set themselves up as authorities on the subject they themselves must be subjected to criticism, and it is* only right to mention that Mr Ervine spoke of “acter" for actor, "tould” for told, “aboout” for about, and Mr Playfair was not free from blame. EMASCULATED LANGUAGE. Critics and theatre managers, said Mr Ervine, were complaining that since the war young actors were so infected with the abominable Oxford voice as to have become inaudible. The late Sir Walter Raleigh observed and ridiculed the affectation as far back as 1602. It was not the inhabitants of Stoke Newington, Lewisham, or Palmers Green, but those of Oxford who were steadily debasing the coin of English speech with their emasculated language. These were the folk who attended "lectchas" and asked one to "dinnah," and said, "Oo noo," when they disagreed with you. "I charge the Church with debasing the English liturgy; actors with debasing the coin of English speech; and the nation with an indolence which prevents them from talking articulately and properly in their beautiful language." EAR TRUMPETS INSTEAD OF OPERA GLASSES. Sermons were no longer intelligible, and preachers ought to be unfrocked fpr spoiling one of the finest literatures In the world. At the theatre people were now forced to use ear-trumpets instead of opera glasss. Pronunciation was so bad all round that the Postmaster-general was appealing to the tone-deaf English to say "fif” in order that "five” might be distinguished from "nine.” "What is the emasculated voice?” said Mr Ervine. “It is the sighing of an emasculated person; only those speak with it who have lost their manhood and virility. I appeal to every woman not to marry any man with such a voice, in order that we may not perpetuate this abominable thing.”— (Laughter.) Races habitually pronouncing R’s and not transforming vowels into diphthongs were audible. The Glasgow Orpheus Choir would he a revelation in right speaking to the majority of English actors and actresses. WHERE THE STANDARD IS SET. Mr Nigel Playfair, in reply, said that he had two main principles on which he was relying to counter the arguments advanced by Mr St. John Ervine. The first was that the English language was in many cases not pronounced as it was spelt; the second principle was that the understanding of English was guided by two thin_ j; convention, determined by good taste, and context. For instance, even Mr St. John Ervine would not maintain that "Cholmondeley” should be pronounced as it was spelt, any more than he would like his own name to be pronounced as "Saint John Irvine.”— Then - a ßain, when Mr Ervine said that there was no standard of English pronunciation, he was talking nonsense. The standard was set in our national theatres and national colleges of correct pronunciation, the headquarters of which were in Ixmdon, the centre of the British Empire. E T. lne M at different times, Mr Playfair continued, been sarcastic about the accents cultivated at Eton, Harrow, and Oxford. It might be true that in all those places you could find odd cases of persons who, although they had been well educated m other respects, were deficient in good speaking voices. But there was generally as high a standard of pronunciation there as anywhere in the Empire. SPEAKING AS MEN SPEAK. ~l n _ a 9? u , nt , er re Ply. Mr Ervine said that t *t g T was n °t the property of the London people, a very small percentage of whom were born in London. It was the.common property of the whole of the English-speaking people of the world. It was pure impudence to think that it coujd be spoken correctly only by a small arrogant race in the South of England.. There might not be a standard pronunciation, but there was clear articulation and there was articulation that was not clear. There were people who spoke as men spoke, and people who did not speak as men spoke. It was our duty to see that this abominable voice was not repeated in our children. Mr Playfair, in a final retort, 6aid he was uofc a member of the arrogant South of England race. He was a Scotsman. But he had tried to learn how to speak English properly. ATTEMPT TO APPEAR “ SMART." Miss Irene Vanbrugh said that in her cpiiioa the Church and the stage were the two places where the English language should be very beautifully and clearly spoken. It was difficult, she knew, for certain young actors and actresses who had to portray modern characters of a certain type to speak otherwise than in the new fashim. But there were certain actresses who thought that unless they adopted the new style of speech they would not be considered "smart." A good actress should . not mind whether she was smart or not, so long as she did her duty to the beautiful language which she was allowed to speak. A LIVS LANGUAGE. The subject, an interesting one, is well dealt with in a leading article in the Morning Post. “The difficulty,” eays the writer, "really lies in this circumstance, that our language is alive and that our pronunciation is the actual living form or forms of a word—that is to say, the word itself. There are still, people in the north-east of this island who pronounce the ‘k’ in ‘knife’; and we may take it as certain that at one time everybody so pronounced the word. But no doubt it was found troublesome by the lazy, and so' it slipped away, and it would be vain to try to revive it. But then, if there is nothing wrong in dropping the ‘k’ in ’knife’, why is it to be accounted a crime to drop the ‘r’ out of ‘clever,’ ‘never,’ and all such words. It is really a matter of custom and convenience. Who shall judge between the Scottish drill-instructor who commanded his recruits to ‘tur-ren’ at the last syllable of the wor—r-d *tur-ren,’ and the Cockney who habitually pronounces It ‘tahn’? We cannot go by the spelling, since the spelling is only what Dr Murray calls a symbolisation of what Is possibly a dead form. We can only follow custom, and we have to Judge according to taste what custom is best. THE ACCURATE FOLLOW THE LAZY. “We must, in fact, try to speak as the best people speak—and how are we to know and where are we to find the best people? If we go to Oxford we shall often find people apparently unable to talk all by reason of an affected drawl which almost strangles articulation. The Oxford drawl would never do In London, where people are busy, and we might say that there are several different standards of English—of the learned, of the fashionable, of the busy, of the people. We say nothing of dialects, or of the man from Fife, ‘who dldna’ ken he had ony accent’ till he came to London. Who shall aay in what dialect the original English now resides? Nor does it greatly matter. If language 1» living it must