Where art “Thou?”

Posted on March 30, 2011 by Ben
King James Bible

King James' Bible, a text with frequent "thou" usage

Remember thou, the word that perplexed every high-schooler forced to read Shakespeare and Chaucer? What happened to that word?

Thou, as one can deduce, meant “you” up until the 1600s or so. You, in fact, was originally a second person plural, meaning it referred to a group of people, similar to modern-day dialect words like y’all, youse, or you guys.

Then, around the time of Shakespeare, thou started to recede. I’ve never read a fully satisfying explanation for why thou disappeared, but disappear it did. Soon enough, you replaced thou completely in most dialects. It’s appropriately Shakespearean: once-mighty King Thou, replaced by his crafty brother You, relegated to an eternal exile from the Kingdom of standard English.

Thou didn’t completely die out, however. As anybody who has read a DH Lawrence novel set in the East Midlands can tell you, thou remained a feature of some (mostly rural) dialects in England. The question is, are any of these dialects still around?

To answer this question, let’s look at the official party line, so to speak, regarding contemporary thou. Here is a choice quote from Wikipedia:

In traditional dialects, thou is used in the counties of Westmorland, Durham, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire and some western parts of Nottinghamshire.[34]

Wikipedia cites Peter Trudgill’s The Dialects of England here, so I’ll tentatively accept the statement as true. But I don’t really understand what “traditional dialects” means. Do these dialects still exist?

I decided to do a bit of searching myself. I headed over to the British Library website, and looked through the recordings from the Leeds Survey of English study. Most of the speakers analyzed were born in the 1870s and 1880s, so it gives us a good idea of the status of thou 100 years ago.

In Nottinghamshire and Westmorland, I couldn’t find any recordings that featured thou. This evidence would suggest that, in those counties, the word was already receding by the late Victorian era. Of several recordings for Staffordshire and Derbyshire, there was only one thou speaker each. Again, I’d guess the word was dying out in those counties by the turn of the 20th-Century.*

But in Yorkshire and Lancashire, the majority of the Leeds recordings featured thou or its variants thy and thee. And in Durham, though there were fewer accent samples, there were quite a few thou‘s as well.  So it would appear that, until at least WWI, thou was widespread across a large expanse of Northern England.

But while we have evidence that “thou” lasted into the 20th-Century, we haven’t answered our question: has thou survived in England to the present day? The word (or variants) is definitely used in the contemporary Scots language, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there were Scottish dialects slightly closer to standard English which feature it as well. But are there any true-blue modern English dialects with thou?

And this is where I could use some advice. Has anybody encountered a clip of a modern-day dialect of English that features thou? Or some other evidence of conteporary thou usage?

*Just to be clear, I actually did not spend hours last night pouring through dozens of audio recordings. The British library has a detailed linguistic analysis of each of the recordings in the study, and clearly states if they feature “thou.”

Share

Posted in British English | Tagged , | 30 Comments

Short O: Separated by an Uncommon Vowel

Posted on March 29, 2011 by Ben

Letter oBrits and Americans are perplexed by each other’s short-o‘s.

The short-o, of course, it the curious little vowel sound in words like lot, rod and top. It’s is one of the English Language’s more inconsequential phonemes (you can write entire paragraphs without using a short-o word); yet, paradoxically, it is one of the more noticeable separators between British and American accents.

In Received Pronunciation (Standard British), short-o is typically a open back rounded vowel (IPA ɒ), whereas in American English (General American) it is a open back unrounded vowel (IPA ɑ). Crudely speaking, hot is “hawt” in British English, but “haht” in American English.

Well, not exactly. There are many ways of pronouncing short-o in both the UK and North America. In Canada, the Western US and Eastern New England, IPA ɒ (i.e. the British vowel) is fairly common. Likewise, the flat ɑ (or “ah”) vowel can often be heard in the West Country of England.  So there is some overlap.

That being said, I’m often amused by how befuddled Brits are by the “flat” American short-o (i.e. the unrounded vowel).  Did this come from Ireland, they ask?  Or some other foreign influence?

Actually, I’m pretty sure it came from England. Below are three dialect recordings from the classic University of Leeds Survey of English study from the 1950s.  All three feature the unrounded “American” pronunciation of Short-o (i.e. ɑ):

This one from Kent.
This one from Norfolk.
This one from Berkshire.

Notably, these recordings are all from the Eastern half of England, with the last one deriving from a small village just outside Reading.  In fact, as per the Handbook of the Varieties of English, Reading still features the “unrounded” short-o among some speakers. It certainly appears to have been more widespread in England before World War II. This is hardly an “American” vowel at all!

We Americans are a bit confused by British short-o as well.  Since most American accents don’t have any real short vs. long distinctions, we have a hard time finding an American vowel to approximate the standard British short-o.  Hence this now notorious video of an American speech coach trying to teach people the British short-o.

Anybody found a pronunciation of this vowel particularly odd? Or have some short-o tidbit to share? Or simply want to express displeasure at all the uses of the phrase “short-o” in one post?

Share

Posted in English Phonetics | Tagged | 25 Comments

News Roundup: Gaddafi’s Secret Weapon

Posted on March 27, 2011 by Ben
Muammar Gaddafi

Muammar Gaddafi (Wikimedia)

A few news tidbits from the world of accents and dialects:

1.) Another week,another fluffy study about how people perceive dialects. This time, New Zealanders were asked which accents they liked or disliked. The results? Kiwis like Kiwi accents the most, but like Australian accents the least. Coming soon to a linguistics department near you: a new “Confirming Regional Hosilities” course.

2.) Here in America, politicians have a long tradition of adopting a slight Southern Accent to sound a bit more “folksy.” Few, however, have taken this trick to as ridiculous an extreme as Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty who has been rightly criticized for his affected drawl. For you international readers, someone from Minnesota “slipping into” a Southern Accent would make about as much sense as someone from East London “slipping into” a Glasgow accent.

3.) There has been a debate brewing, for some inexplicable reason, over a recent translation of the Bible into Jamaican Creole. Because, of course, the Bible was meant to read in the most Elizabethan and archaic English possible.

4.) There are many surreal elements to the dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi. Few as bizarre, however, than his assertion that he remains popular due to his adoption of African American Vernacular English. There are no words, really.

Share
Comments Off on News Roundup: Gaddafi’s Secret Weapon

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on News Roundup: Gaddafi’s Secret Weapon

The Ebonics Factor: A Quick Addendum

Posted on March 26, 2011 by Ben

In the previous post, I mentioned the divide between the accents of Detroit and neighboring Windsor, Ontario.  There is a complicating factor, however, that I neglected to mention:  African American Vernacular English (AAVE, or crudely, “Ebonics“).*

AAVE, for those who don’t know, is a dialect of English that largely derives from American Southern English, that is spoken in many Northern cities where African Americans migrated.

The majority of people in the Detroit metropolitan area probably speak with the accent I described in the last post:  a derivation of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift.  But the majority of people in the city of Detroit itself speak AAVE.  Hence, if somebody from Windsor were to walk over to Detroit, this is the accent they would most likely hear spoken on the street.

The take-home point is that not only is there a division between the English of Canada and the US, but there is often a division between the accents of the cities on the American side of the border!

I have no theory as to how this affects the Detroit English vs. Windsor English conundrum.  But it’s a factor worth consideration.

*I ask linguists’ forgiveness for using the hated Ebonics misnomer in the title of this post.  Alas, “African American Vernacular English” was a bit unwieldy and I hate putting acronyms in titles.  But to be clear to non-linguists: “Ebonics” is NOT the preferred term.

Share

Posted in American English | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Northern Cities Vowel Shift vs. Canadian Accents

Posted on March 24, 2011 by Ben
Detroit, 1920s

1920s Detroit (Detroit Public Library)

As per our recent discussion of Canadian accents, I’d like to delve into a question I often hear: how different is Canadian English from American English?

What’s remarkable about Canadian English is not that it’s different from American English, but how different it is from the American accents nearby. The Toronto Accent, for example, is closer to the English spoken in California than the English spoken in nearby Buffalo. Why is this?

Not only are Buffalo accents and Canadian accents different, but they are actually shifting…in opposite directions.

Buffalo, along with other Northern US cities, features something called the Northern Cities Vowel Shift (NCVS). That means that a number of vowels have shifted from their “normal” positions in General American. The vowel in bet moves toward the vowel in but, bat moves toward bet, bot toward bat, bought toward bot, and but toward bought. It’s like a game of linguistic musical chairs!

This is why somebody from Buffalo can sound a bit “flat:” the word back can sound like “beh-uhck” and the word top often sounds like General American “tap.” It can be slightly jarring to outside listeners.

But Toronto has its own game of “musical chairs” going on in the opposite way: the vowel in bat moves toward the vowel in bot and bot moves toward bought. So, somebody from Toronto could say:

“Bought the bat.”

And it would sound to someone from Buffalo like:

“Butt the bot.”

I am exaggerating a bit here, but the point is clear: these two cities, despite being a mere two hours from each other, are remarkably different linguistically.

Why is it that there is such a large divide along the border between Canada and the US? I did a bit of research to see what I could come up with, and at first glance not much explained this conundrum.

As per William Labov in this article, the Northern Cities Vowel Shift looks to have started in upstate New York or thereabout around the late 19th-Century. But both Buffalo and Toronto experienced similar immigration patterns around the turn of the 20th Century. So there isn’t much difference between the two in that regard.

But it occurred to me that there might be a more grim explanation here. The major Eastern cities close to Canada–Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland–simply never got a chance to attract any kind of cross-border cultural communication. Upon the collapse of industry in Detroit and Buffalo, there would have been little economic reason for Canadians to move there. Likewise, there would have been little reason for the largely working-class populations of those American cities to move to the very white-collar economically diverse Canadian cities of Windsor and Toronto. [UPDATE: After hearing from at least one native of Windsor, I’m not so sure this theory holds water for the Detroit-Windsor area.]

I wonder if this will change. I see no reason Detroit and Buffalo won’t become economically powerful cities in the next few decades. Weirder things have happened: In the 1970s, the city of Seattle was a working-class town with an unemployment rate of about 25%. In two decades it became one of the wealthiest and most economically diverse areas in North America. Go figure.

If these these other cities become powerful again, will the NCVS spread to Canada? Will Canadian English spead southward? Or will the two accents remain forever distinct?

Share

Posted in American English | Tagged , | 17 Comments

A Rant: Accents and Bad Journalism

Posted on March 23, 2011 by Ben
Brian Cox

Brian Cox, victim of dialect slander! (Courtesy, Paul Clarke)

I realize that accents and dialects constitute a fairly obscure topic.  But I’m finding myself increasingly dismayed by how terribly journalism bungles this area of study.

Look, I understand how easy it is to mess up facts when it comes to linguistics.  I’ve only been running this site for two-and-a-half months, and I’ve already had to make any number of corrections to it.  It is easy to miss important data, forget something that you read, or draw unfounded conclusions.

But then there is something like this fluff piece at the Telegraph, about regional accents on the BBC. The piece begins by discussing the recent controversy over professor Brian Cox‘s documentary series, The Wonder of the Universe:  viewers complained the background music was too loud.  But the author decides to go in a different direction:

However, a long-awaited BBC report has found that regional accents are an equally significant factor. The findings could explain why Prof Cox, with his distinctive Lancashire accent, struggles to be understood.

But nobody is saying that. This is an unrelated study, which has nothing to do with Cox, whose accent is so mild that a grandmother from Iowa could understand him. And yet Cox’s picture is there, right at the top of the article, as if his gentle, lilting accent had anything to do with the topic.

Can we please, then, not validate Britain’s mindless sub-culture of dialect haters?  Indeed, in the comments for the article are a slew of loutish trolls ranting about the supposed ugliness of Northern accents.  Good job adding fuel to the fire.

The article ends with an ever-so-shocking response from the Beeb: “A BBC spokesman said regional accents would continue to feature on the BBC despite the issues raised.”

What?? You mean the world’s most respected media organization won’t be hiring a staff dialectician to make sure all their “dodgy” award-winning physicists and reporters speak the Queen’s English? Heaven forbid!

Lest you think this is merely a British phenomenon, there is this recent piece from the Chicago Tribune about dialect coach Linda Gates’ work with an Australian actor to master a Chicago accent. After spending a few a paragraphs discussing the coach’s methods, the piece ends with this laughable quote:

“Sometimes words are completely pronounced differently in British English,” [Gates] said.

Umm, weren’t we talking about an Australian actor? To be fair to Gates, I think the reporter took this quote out of context. But really? There wasn’t somebody editing this article who noticed that Britain is a different country from Australia?

I know it’s easy to criticize. Linguistics is a science that is prone to retractions, contradictory evidence and constant change. When it comes to English accents, which evolve rapidly within mere decades, you can find holes in almost anything if you set your mind to it. Even the three accent-oriented linguists I most admire–Labov, Wells and Raymond Hickey–have borne endless reams of criticism questioning the validity of their findings. It comes with the territory.

But can we at least make sure what we’re writing isn’t wildly contradictory? Or patently wrong?

Share

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

“New Joysey” and “Oirish:” 6 Accent Myths

Posted on March 21, 2011 by Ben
A Leprechaun

These assumptions are as mythical as leprechauns

As per yesterday’s post about the mythological Canadian aboot, I’ve thought of some other myths people harbor about accents and dialects of English. Here are a few common misconceptions:

1.) Myth: People in Shakespeare’s day talked more like Americans than modern Brits.

Reality: That’s wishful thinking. As I’ve said before, Elizabethan English didn’t sound like contemporary British or American English. It sounded closer to an extremely strong Irish accent.  While it is true that the English spoken in Shakespeare’s day wouldn’t have sounded particularly English, that doesn’t mean it would have sounded American, either.

2.) Myth: American English is “colonizing” other accents of English.

Reality: Based on what evidence? There hasn’t been a large exodus of Americans to the UK, or Australia, or even Ireland. American English has become a bogeyman:  if the young people are speaking differently, it must be the influence of those rascally yanks! But I’ve never seen solid evidence that American English is spreading to other English-speaking countries.  This recent study only confirms how unfounded the notion is.

3.) Myth: The Irish pronounce Irish “Oirish”

Reality: Not quite. When you hear “oy” (i.e. IPA ɔɪ)in words like “Irish” or “kite” or “ride,” you’re usually mishearing a diphthong which begins in the center of the mouth: IPA əɪ (or, roughly speaking, “uh-ee“). Because this diphthong doesn’t exist in most English accents, it is often misheard as “oy.”*  Hence people often think the Irish pronounce fly, tide and right as “floy,” “toyed” and “royt.”  It’s also worth mentioning that Irish is more commonly “Arish” in many parts of Ireland.

4.) Myth: People from the New York area pronounce New Jersey “New Joysey.”

Reality: As with Irish/”Oirish” silliness above, this is actually a diphthong that starts in the center of the mouth; it’s most definitely not an “oy” sound.  Again, it’s more like IPA əɪ (that is, “uh-ee”).  If you hear “oy,” you’re just hearing the wrong sound.  It’s a moot point, anyway: this old-fashioned New York pronunciation is extremely rare these days.  It mostly died out in the 1960s or thereabouts.

5.) Myth: British English is older than American English.

Reality:  Just because America is a younger country doesn’t mean its dialects are younger.  In fact, many of the most widespread British accents feature newer linguistic innovations than their American counterparts. Between Estuary English and General American, for example, GenAm is by far the more conservative of the two accents.  American English preserves many old features–rhoticity and the short-a in bath, for example–that used to be more common in British English.

6.) Myth: Americans can’t tell the difference someone from Belfast and someone from London.

Reality: No seriously, I once read this absurd statement in a book written by a respected British vocal coach. The truth is, some Americans can tell the difference between British accents, and some can’t.  But there is no single “American Ear.”  Let’s not generalize!

Can you think of any more myths like these? There is so much misinformation floating around about the English language.  It boggles the mind!

*As a commenter notes below, there is a possible exception to this in working-class (or “popular”) Dublin accents, which may have a bit of lip-rounding in the first part of the diphthong.

Share

Posted in Miscellaneous Accents and Dialects | Tagged , , , | 19 Comments

Canadian Raising: Nobody says “Aboot”

Posted on March 20, 2011 by Ben

The Canadian FlagA point of clarification: Canadians do not say aboot.

Canadian English features something called Canadian Raising, which basically means that the diphthong in “now” is raised before t, s or other voiceless consonants (i.e. before words like about and house).

What does this mean?  In most Canadian accents, about sounds a bit like American a-boat (IPA əbʌʊt).  I offer these examples of Canadian politicians with this pronunciation (shortly into each clip):

In younger Canadians, I’ve noticed a variation of this which is a bit fronter in the mouth–something like a-beh-oot (IPA əbɛʊt).  But regardless of the pronunciation, nobody in Canada ever says “aboot.”*

So then, what’s the deal with aboot? Where does this mythological pronunciation come from?

One thing I’ve heard is that aboot is a pronunciation in a particular region of Canada: the Atlantic Provinces (Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, etc).  But I have never found a clip of anybody from that area who says aboot.

So this is probably one of those bits of dialect folklore that survives despite evidence to the contrary.  It’s a bit like New Jersey’s reputation for being pronounced “New Joysey” even though virtually nobody in Jersey says it like that anymore (and even when they did, this pronunciation would have been confined to a small area near New York).

Aboot is a pronunciation in some parts of the UK, of course.  Specifically, you can hear it in some very vernacular, Scots-influenced dialects of Scottish English.  This used to be a common pronunciation in Newcastle as well, but has faded greatly in contemporary times.

But this is for sure:  Canadians do not, probably never did, and probably never will say aboot!

*[Maybe “ever” is too strong a word.]

Share

Posted in Miscellaneous Accents and Dialects | Tagged , , | 97 Comments

Good at Phonetics? It May be Genetics!

Posted on March 18, 2011 by Ben
Vowel Sounds

Wikimedia

Any dialect coach will tell you that not everyone has a knack for picking up accents. Some people take to this kind of work immediately, while others struggle to recognize the most basic differences between accents. It’s a sad reality.

I have attributed this to external factors: where one grows up, media exposure, or one’s family. Regarding myself, I assumed my own phonetics obsession was due my parents (he is from the Upper Midwest, she from the American South), my hometown (in between several dialect areas), and my television habits (we only got PBS growing up, hence I watched a lot of BBC programming).

But then there’s this new study, which suggests that accent and phonetic proficiency may be genetic. Some people have brains that are capable of hearing phonetic differences between different speakers, while others are “deaf” in this regard. Quote the relevant article in Syfy News:

Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the researchers compared the brain structures of seventeen phoneticians against sixteen healthy control volunteers and showed clear differences in the structure of key areas of the brain.

Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised, though. Thinking back, there is a bit of circumstantial evidence in my own life suggesting a correlation between genetics and phonetics.

My aunt, for example. She is an anthropologist who spent years immersed in the culture of the Tamils of Sri Lanka. I read a bit of her book a few years back, and remember finding something startling within the first few chapters. There was a detailed “pronunciation guide” for the Tamil language that looked remarkably similar to pronunciation guides I had made for English dialects. It looked, in short, like something I would create in my free time.

Then there’s my father, who works in the field of early childhood education. I only recently realized that phonetic analysis is an important part of his field. Indeed, he is one of the only people I know who has said, “Oh yeah, I’ve used that in the past,” when I’ve mentioned the International Phonetic Alphabet.

Beyond that, I’ve found there to be a slight preoccupation with accents and dialects among many members of my family. As I’ve mentioned on this blog before, I recall my grandmother discussing British accents with me when I was ten years old.

Strangely, though, part of me wishes phonetic proficiency wasn’t something innate. I truly hope we are all capable of learning languages and dialects, and recognizing different ways of speaking. I still hold on to that dream.

Share

Posted in English Phonetics | Tagged | 7 Comments

The 5 Best Irish Accents on Film

Posted on March 17, 2011 by Ben
Cliffs of Moher

Cliffs of Moher (Wikipedia)

As it’s Saint Patrick’s day, there have been a number of “worst Irish Accents on film articles floating around. I like to remain relatively positive here, so instead of putting out another list eviscerating Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts, I’d like to counter these hatchet jobs with a list of the best Irish accents on film.

Its very easy to criticize actors doing Irish Accents. Ireland is an island with just over six million people, and sometimes it seems there are twice as many accents. An actor studying an Irish accent is likely to get some very unreliable feedback.

With that in mind, this is a list of my favorite Irish accents in cinema. Sometimes I single out individual actors, other times I refer to the whole movie. Some of these accents are authentic (spoken by actual locals), other times pitch-perfect simulations. But they are all great examples of the diversity of Irish speech. I’ve included some clips for your perusal.*

1.) The Wind that Shakes the Barley (2006)

Specific Accent: County Cork

Filmmaker Ken Loach makes it his policy to only hire actors who are actually from the regions where he sets his films. That means the accents in this lush drama set in Civil War-era Cork are 100% authentic. It’s a great opportunity to listen to one of the most colorful, bizarre and beautiful accents of the English language.

Choice Clip: This extended trailer gives some good snippets of the Cork accent.

2.) Daniel Day-Lewis, In the Name of the Father (1993)

Specific Accent: Belfast

Many people have said this is the greatest dialect work by an actor captured on film. I can’t disagree. The accent is authentic enough that it’s perhaps the only fake accent I recommend actors listen to for research. Day-Lewis masters such precise nuances of the Belfast brogue that it boggles my mind to consider the work it took to acquire it.

Choice Clip: This tour de force scene, probably one of the greatest monologues in film.

3.) Intermission (2003)

Specific Accent: Dublin

The actors in this film are a mix of local Dubliners and actors from elsewhere, so the level of authenticity varies. But I can think of few films that capture the language of a city better. From the opening monologue (delivered by Colin Farrell in the thickest of brogues), I was hooked.

Choice Clip: This shocking (but hilarious) opening monologue.

4.) Bloody Sunday (2002)

Specific Accent: Derry

This film, about the pivotal Bloody Sunday massacre in Derry, Northern Ireland, is packed with local actors and authentic accents. One of the great things about this film is it portrays how very different the English spoken by the residents of Derry was from the British soldiers who occupied the city. The accents give an idea of how much these two groups saw each other as foreigners, and how much this contributed to the tension.

Choice Clip: This trailer has many brief snippets of the Derry accent.

5.) Samantha Morton and Paddy Considine, In America (2003)

Specific Accent: Middle-Class Dublin

I love this tearjerker of a film, about a struggling family of Irish immigrants in New York City. British actors Morton and Considine prove that subtle dialect work is often the most effective. Employing gentle Dublin accents, they never let the accents get in the way. The lesson: you don’t need to sound like a leprechaun to be recognizably Irish.

Choice Clip: Another trailer, with a lot of clips of Morton and Considine (and the two adorable little girls who play their daughters).

I admit there have been many terrible Irish accents through the years, usually by misguided American movie stars demonstrating their “versatility.” But the really great Irish accents make up for it. Little evokes the beauty of the Emerald Isle more than the speech of the place.

Happy Saint Patrick’s day!

*My policy regarding online video clips is that I only embed videos that have been uploaded by creators or copyright holders. Since I can’t confirm the status of the clips above, I only provide links, not embedded video. If any of these links don’t work, let me know!

Share

Posted in Irish English | Tagged , , | 10 Comments