The Cambridge History of the English Language Volume 4 Part 7 pptx

MichaelΚ. Ρ. MacMahon

FATHOM , PASSIV E and AMPL E is the 'same sound, short' as in FATHER ,

PASSING , EXAMPL E — which would argue for a realisation possibly

retracted from CV [a]. 8 7

Smart too notes that the vowel of A T is 'nearly the

same as the open vowel in far1

(Smart 1819: 34). Yet, a few years later, he

points out that a Londoner 'has even a narrower sound' in FA T than a

French speaker would have in the French word FA T (= coxcomb) (Smart

1836: v).

The pnly clear articulatory description of /ΰη/ comes from Thornton

(1793:281) - whose accent may have been some form of British English.88

He says that 'the mouth must be still more open than for [IPA [o:]], the

lower lip descends a little below the tips of the under teeth, and the tongue

must lie flat'. This suggests more of a back than a front vowel - the tongue

would have to be noticeably humped for a front vowel. Thornton's evi￾dence is, however, ambiguous because of uncertainty as to what variety of

English he was describing. If, because of his years in Scotland, the accent

(presumably his own) was Scottish, then he would probably not have had

asA M Τ PSAL M contrast. Thus, his realisation of a single open phoneme

could indeed have been further back.89

Perhaps the explanation for the varying opinions lies in a changing pref￾erence: in the 1770s an [a]-ish vowel, by the turn of the century and later

an [ae]-ish one, but with some authors still preferring the older pronuncia￾tion. On the other hand, there is some evidence of socially conditioned

variability in the 1770s, whereby the realisations of /ΰη/acted as indicators

of aspects of speakers' personalities. Kenrick says this: 'But who, except

flirting females and affected fops pronounce man and Bath, as if they were

written maen, baeth, or like Mary, fair, &c' (Kenrick 1773: 40; cf. Sheldon

1938: 278). He was presumably implying realisations which were close to

the / ε / of MAN Y and the /e: / of FAIR , as well as those which were diph￾thongal, albeit starting from the general area of /ΰη/and moving towards

/ ε / (not the other way round). A comment by Ellis, almost 100 years after

Kenrick, again emphasises the role that /ΰη/played as a social marker, (ΰη)

[= CV [a] or perhaps IPA [ΰη]],90

was 'also used by very delicate speakers,

especially educated ladies from Yorkshire, in such as words as: basket, staff,

p*zth, ptfss, aunt, in which (ah, a) [= IPA [β, λ] and (ΰηΰη,aah, aa) [= IPA [a:,

β:, λ:] a r e also heard' (Ellis 1869: 594). The accompanying comment about

/ΰη/ being 'the despair of foreigners' would well suggest, in the light of

twentieth-century pronunciations, that the sound was (with specific excep￾tions such as the one above) closer to CV [e] than to CV [a]. Parallels to

these types of /ΰη/ can be heard in some current forms of RP (cf. Wells

1982: 281).

454

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Phonology

Taking all the comments into account, one can reasonably conclude that

/٨ε/ had different realisations — at least during the fifty years from the

1770s: a vowel between CV [e] and CV [a], and other vowels open and

retracted from CV [a]. Thereafter from about 1830 onwards, the realisation

was between CV [a] and CV [e]. The lowering of RP /ΰε/ towards CV [a]

is a relatively recent, late twentieth-century development (cf. Wells 1982:

291-2, Bauer 1994:115-21, esp. 119).

5.8.6 /ΰυ/ > /ΰ: /

As with /ζ/, determining the quality of /a: / with any precision is not

straightforward. However, one very useful description comes from Herries,

who sets up two categories of vowel on articulatory criteria: those in which

the sound is 'broader and fuller . . . arising from the flat posture of the

tongue' (i.e. /ξ:, ξ:, θ, λ/) and, second, those in which 'the tongue reaches

forward, and gradually ascends towards the arch of the palate . . . and

renders the sound more acute' (i.e. /a: , ae, e, e:, i:/) (Herries 1773: opp. 25).

This would indicate that /a: / had more of a kinaesthetically fronter 'feel' to

it than /ξ:/. According to Walker (1791:10), /a: / is the 'middle sound of a,

as between the a in pale, and that in wait. An attempt can be made to calcu￾late more precisely its quality by taking into account that its short equivalent

was 'generally confounded with the short sound of the slender ^ (1791:11)

— thus suggesting a vowel close to the open-mid quality of [e] — and, second,

by replicating the sense of equidistance between vowels. If articulatory

equidistance is used, then the result is a central vowel between open and

open-mid [a:]. If auditory equidistance is calculated from the second for￾mants of the vowels (by whispering them), then the result will be a vowel

half-way between /e: / (assumed to be [e:]), and /ξ:/ ([ξ:]). This gives

another non-open vowel, but further forward, raised and retracted from

CV4, i.e. [ae:]. A compromise between the two calculations gives [a:]. 9 1

That the vowel was not close to the front line of the vowel chart is evi￾denced by other comments. Sharp notes that it is a 'medium sound between

aw [= IPA [o:]] and the English a\ which is 'sounded like the Italian a, only

somewhat longer' (Sharp 1767: 9; 17^7: 5, 9). Smith, nevertheless, would

have it nearer to the front than the back line, with his comment that it is

'the German a, exactly in... hart* (Smith 1795:5); see the similar comments

in Gilchrist (1824:263). Further evidence for a fronter rather than a backer

realisation comes from Adams, a good speaker of French, who had lived

in the country for many years and who was well aware of the / ΰ / Τ /ΰ /

distinction in French. He provides a social comment on what happens if

45 5

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Michael K. C. MacMahon

/ai / is realised with too back an articulation: 'β ouvert et grand est trop dur,

et grossier, [qui] imite plutτt le ris des paysans, ou des ivrognes, que le ris

doux et poli du beau monde' (Adams 1794: 93). This would indicate, even

so, that a backer vowel was in use at this time, though restricted to lower

sections of society Ekwall (1975:23) maintains that during the first half of

the nineteenth century the realisation 'in the standard language' was further

back than CV [a], 9 2

which derived from 'the usual pronunciation in popular

speech' during the last few years of the eighteenth century. Ellis (1869) has

a similar remark to Adams's about the social marking of the realisation of

/a:/ : (aa) [= IPA [a:]: it is 'by some recognised as the common London

sound meant for (aa) [= IPA [a:] or [A:]]' (Ellis 1869: 593).

Certainly, by the late 1860s, however, a fully back open-mid or cen￾tralised open articulation seems to have become generally acceptable: 'the

sounds (aant) [= IPA [A:nt] or [a:nt] (laaf) [= IPA |lA:f] or [ld:f],93

'which

are now extremely prevalent' (Ellis 1869:149).

Other socially marked allophones which Ellis draws attention to are

(aah) [= IPA [B:], 9 4

'occasionally heard from "refined" speakers . . . while

(awe) [= IPA [a:]] used by others is too "mincing"' (Ellis 1869: 593). He

elaborates by saying that (aeae) [= IPA [a:]] is the sound heard 'especially

from ladies, as a thinner utterance of (aa) [= IPA [A:]] than (aah) would be'

(Ellis 1869: 594).

Sweet draws attention to the diphthongal pronunciation of /a: / (Sweet

1877: 111), with the tongue moving in the direction of the 'mid-mixed

position' (i.e. IPA [a]); however, he points out that it is 'not marked enough

to be written' - presumably, the intensity level of the diphthong decreases

rapidly during the glide itself. And this is paralleled by a later (private)

comment that there is a 'very slight voice murmur' between /a: / and /m/

in ARM S and ALM S — he writes the vowel (aa 9

) — but the pure [a:] is used

in PAR T (Sweet to Storm 18 May 1879). (In ARM S and ALMS , the 'slight

voice murmur' could be the change in vowel quality by anticipatory nasali￾sation of the vowel before the /m/. Alternatively, in the first word it could

be residual rhotacisation: see section 5.10.6.

5.8.7 /A /

Herries' articulatory description indicates a back vowel: the tongue is

'pulled backwards, and much depressed, to render the cavity of the mouth

as wide as possible' (Herries 1773: opp. 25). Thornton's articulatory

description is less transparent: 'opening the mouth a very little, just

sufficient to shew the edges of the upper teeth... and suffering the tongue

456

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Phonology

and lip s to remain at rest' (Thornton 1793:280). This produces a variety of

vowel-sounds because, critically, Thornton omits any mention of the posi￾tion of the lower jaw.

Comparisons with other languages are noticeable in many of the attempts

to describe the articulation of / A / . The phonetic quality of the vowel fol￾lowed by /r/ is described by Kenrick (1784: 56), in terms which allow one to

calculate with some precision what the vowel sound was. With reference to

the vowel in the words SIR , HUR , CUR , he says that it 'bears a near, if not

exact, resemblance to the sound of the French leur, coeur, &c. if it were con￾tracted in point of time'. Hence, a short, central to front, open-mid vowel.

There is no evidence that it had the rounding of the French vowel.

Smith says that the Parisian pronunciation of SOTT E (i.e. /sot/ with a

centralised [5] allophone) comes nearest to it - 'but still not near enough'.

German words like HOLL , BOLL , DOLL , similarly, do not convey the sound

as an English / A / (Smith 1795:49). Odell notes that it is close to the quality

of the Italian o chinso or the e in the French words je, me, etc, or 'in the final

syllables of the words gloire, victoire, &c. when they occur in poetical com￾position' — which would indicate a vowel closer to [a] than to CV [A] or to

[v] (Odell 1806:4). Duponceau's remark that his 'ear cHscriminates between

the sounds of the English word buff and the French word boeuf, though they

are both the same as to quantity' (1818:240) might be used a£ evidence that

/ A / was closer to front than back, and open-mid. (Curiously, he does not

mention the difference in lip-rounding.)

Much later in the century, Sweet's comparison of English / A / and

French /o/, together with his remarks on different varieties of / A / , allow

one to establish with some accuracy the qualities of the realisations: 'when

I round but I get a vowel sumthing like the French in dot* (Sweet to Storm

18 Feb. 1889). Similarly, 'the polite sound is [IPA [A]]' (Sweet to Storm 18

Feb. 1889). This contrasts with the realisation of / A / in Cockney,, [IPA [e]],

and the 'pure back (e) [= IPA [A]] in the West of England and Scotland

(Sweet to Storm 18 Feb. 1889; see also Sweet 1888: 275).

During the course of the twentieth century, the RP realisation has

moved gradually forward towards CV [a], although th e backer articulations

typical of th e nineteenth century can still be heard (cf. D. Jones 1962: 86;

Wells 1982:131-2; Gimson 1964:136,1994: 105).

5.8.8 /o /

Henslowe equates the vowel of WATC H and DO G wit h that of the French

BAN C andsAN G (Henslowe 1840:1). If he is correct, then (at least his)/D /

457

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Michael Κ. Ρ. MacMahon

had no lip-rounding and may not have been fully open. This feature is

found in many of today's accents in the British Isles.

5.8.9 /ξ:/

Sharp states that /01/ is 'pronounced like the French ΰ'ςΐψ' (Sharp 1767:

18; 1777: 18). Similarly Nares regards /ξυ/ as equivalent to the legitimate

sound of the long a in the French language' (Nares 1784: 7). Both quota￾tions present difficulties of interpretation: the absence of any reference to

rounding, and, secondly, an open rather than an open-mid tongue position.

Duponceau's remark, if it refers to British rather than American English,95

that the *a in all and 0 in cottage... differ in nothing but quantity' (Duponceau

1818: 239), further obscures the situation.

According to Thornton, for /0: / 'the mouth must be more open than

for [/ A / ] , but the lower lip must not discover the lower teeth... the tongue

is drawn back, the tip of it resting on the bottom of the mouth' (Thornton

1793: 280). The comment about the lower lip 'not discover[ing] the lower

teeth' clearly indicates that the lower lip (or at least most of it) must be clear

of the front of the lower teeth: this can only happen if there is lip-rouhd￾ing. From the remark about the position of the tip of the tongue, it is not

possible to gauge whether Thornton's /01/ had more of an open [o:]

quality or an open-mid [0:] quality, or a position somewhere between these

two. But later, in his description of /01/ , he gives an important clue: 'the

sound resembles the 00 [= IPA [0]], but the 0 [= IPA [o]] is made more in

the mouth than in the throat' (1793:281-2). The strong retraction and low￾ering of the tongue for [D] could, then, be responsible for the muscular sen￾sation of a 'throat' sound. On Thornton's evidence, at least the /0: / that

he was describing appears to have been more open than open-mid.

The evidence for an open, not an open-mid, vowel comes from John

Herries: the tongue is 'pulled backwards, and much depressed, to render

the cavity of the mouth as wide as possible' (Herries 1773: opp. 25). Ellis's

description in 1869 also suggests that the phoneme had allophones which

were open, but he allows for the possibility of three vowels altogether:

open, between open andopen-mid (half-open), and slighdy above open￾mid: in London speech 'the drawl of short (0) [= IPA [D]] is only heard in

drawling utterance, as (ood) [= IPA [t>:]] for (od) odd, a& distinct from awed.

Preachers often say (Good), but seldom or ever (GAAd) [= IPA go:d] for God*

(Ellis 1869: 602). 9 6

The study of American speech instituted by Grandgent (see e.g.

Grandgent 1895) revealed that the majority of American speakers

458

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Phonology

towards the end of the nineteenth century used unrounded, not rounded,

realisations of /ξ:/ (Grandgent 1895:452). Thirty years later, Krapp noted

the same feature, but considered it to be more typical of New England than

of America generally (Krapp 1925JI: 141).

5.8.10 /ξ:/ > /ξθ/ > /٨θ/

Most commentators simply note the existence of /o:/without going into

detail, Sharp, for example, regards it as 'like the French ξ or ari (Sharp 1777:

4). Evidence for it having been a distincdy rounded vowel - at least at the

beginning of the period under consideration - is provided by Herries. The

lip-posture, he says, is 'narrow and circular' (Herries 1773: opp. 25).

Walker's only comment is that it is a long monophthongal sound (Walker

1791:21).

The first explicit reference to a diphthongal quality is in the work of

William Smith in 1795: 'The English long ξ has in it a shade towards the oo,

or 6th sound [i.e. the vowel of woo, FOO D etc.] (Smith 1795: 20). (Being

Scottish, Smith would have had a monophthongal realisation of his

Scottish English / ξ / (equivalent to English English /ξ:/), and would very

probably have noticed without difficulty the difference between a Scottish

and an English pronunciation.) He does not specify any contexts in which

the diphthong occurs, thus suggesting that in all contexts the realisation

was diphthongal. A much earlier reference to dipthongisation could,

however, be the GHdon-Brighdand Grammar of the English Tongue (1711:32):

'The Diphthongs ... ou... or, ow, when they are truly pronounc'd, are com￾pounded of the foregoing or prepositive Vowel, and the Consonant^ w*

(see also Zettersten 1974: xxxii). However, this category of <ou> and

<ow> words could refer to items such as NOU N and GOWN , which cer￾tainly contained a diphthong. The evidence is, therefore, not wholly con￾vincing for a diphthongal pronunciation before the end of the eighteenth

century.

From the early nineteenth century onwards, the diphthongal realisation

is frequendy referred to as becoming the normal (or near-normal) pro￾nunciation. Smart (1836: v) points out that in London speech, the vowel 'is

not always quite simple, but is apt to contract toward the end, finishing

almost as oo in too\ A few years later, Henry Day comments that 'some of

the English vowels are 'occasionally' diphthongal, one of which is c

o in bone,

which commences with the sound of ξ in colt, and ends with that of od (Day

1843:445). (Day was a speaker of American English, and his remarks, espe￾cially since they appeared in an American publication, refer presumably

459

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Michael K. C. MacMahon

only to American English.) The force of his 'occasionally' qualification is

unclear.

Some of the most perceptive comments on /o:/(or /ou/) are pro￾vided by Ellis (cf. 1874: 1152). Discussing his own pronunciation he

makes various points (the first of which has already been referred to: see

above, 5.5.13). In an open syllable, e.g. KNOW , his /o: / 'regularly' had

diphthongisation; in NO , his /o: / 'often' had diphthongisation. This

should be compared with his comment five years earlier (1869: 602) that

there were still some speakers who contrasted N O and KNO W by means

of a monophthongal diphthongal contrast: in his notation, (nod)

versus (noou). However, pronunciations such as the one he describes for

KNOW , sow, etc, 'especially when the sound is forcibly uttered' are

'exaggerations, and I believe by no means common among educated

speakers'. But, he asks, what causes the diphthongisation? 'In really

raising the back of the tongue .. . or in merely further closing or 'round￾ing' the mouth .. . or in disregarding the position of the tongue, and

merely letting labialised voice, of some kind, come out through a lip

aperture belonging to (u) . . . ?' He is obviously discussing a closer type

of lip-rounding which does not involve associated tongue raising. The

conditions under which the vowel is diphthongal are pre-pausal and

before 'the (k) and the (p) series'. The tendency is 'least before the (t)

series ... Before (t, d) I do not perceive the tendency... The sound (bout)

is not only strange to me, but disagreeable to my ear and troublesome to

my tongue. Even (boo'wfy sounds strange . . . Mr Bell's [i.e. Alexander

Melville Bell] consistent use of (. . . ou) as the only received pronuncia￾tion thoroughly disagrees with my own observations .. . As to the "cor￾rectness" or "impropriety" of such sounds I do not see on what grounds

I can offer an opinion. I can only say what I observe, and what best

pleases my ear' (Ellis 1874: 1152).

The fronting of the first element to a centralised or central element (e.g.

[a] or [3]) was noticed towards the end of the nineteenth century: Sweet

remarks on the stylistically conditioned central starting-point of the diph￾thong (Sweet 1890b: 76), adding that 'the constant use of [EPA [ow

]] gives

a character of effeminacy or affectation to the pronunciation'. Phipson

(1895) writes of 'the fashionable London pronunciation' of ONL Y as

'aunli', and compares it with the 'vulgar hounli' (Phipson 1895: 217). In

1909, Daniel Jones noted that the starting-point was 'slightly rounded' — i.e.

not the full rounding that would be associated with a vowel transcribed

with an [o] (Jones, D. 1909: 86). 9 7

The comment by Henry Alexander in

1939, who remarked on a sudden (and unexpected) change in the starting￾460

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008