And this more careful articulation obtains also in all _a.s.severation_.

A speaker who wishes to provoke attention to any particular statement or sentiment will speak the words by which he would convey it more slowly and with more careful articulation than the rest of his utterance.

Under both these common conditions the man who has learned only the vernacular of Mr. Jones' phonetics has no resource but to emphasize with all their full horrors words like _seprit_, _sin'kerpate_, _din'ersty_, _ernoin't_, _mis'ernthrope_, _sym'perthy_, _mel'ernkerly_, _mel'erdy_, _serspe'ct_, _erno'y_, &c.[24], which when spoken indistinctly in careless talk may pa.s.s muster, but when accurately articulated are not only vulgar and absurd, but often unrecognizable.

[Footnote 24: Writing _er_, always unaccented, for [e].]

[Sidenote: In public speaking.]

(2) Again, public speakers use a p.r.o.nunciation very different from that in the dictionary, and Mr. Jones admits this and would teach it _sepritly_ as 'style A'. But it is wrong to suppose that its characteristics are a mere fashion or a pedantic regard for things obsolete, or a nice rhetorical grace, though Mr. Jones will have it to be mostly artificial, 'due to well-established, though perhaps somewhat arbitrary rules laid down by teachers of elocution'. The basis of it is the need of being heard and understood, together with the experience that style B will not answer that purpose. The main service, no doubt, of a teacher of elocution is to instruct in the management of the voice (clergyman's sore throat is a recognized disease of men who use their voice wrongly); but a right p.r.o.nunciation is almost equally necessary and important.

Now if public speakers really have to learn something different from their habitual p.r.o.nunciation, Mr. Jones is right in making a separate style of it, and he is also justified in the degraded forms of his style B, for those are what these speakers have to unlearn; nor is any fault to be found with his diligent and admirable a.n.a.lysis.

These two practical considerations expose the situation sufficiently: we may now face the triple-tongued dragon and exhibit how a single whiff of common sense will tumble all his three heads in the dust.

[Sidenote: The natural right method.]

The insideoutness, topsy-turviness, and preposterousness of Mr. Jones'

method is incredible. In the natural order of things, children would be taught a careful 'high standard' articulation as a part of their elemental training, when in their pliant age they are mastering the co-ordinations which are so difficult to acquire later. Then when they have been educated to speak correctly, their variation from that full p.r.o.nunciation is a natural carelessness, and has the grace of all natural behaviour, and it naturally obeys whatever laws have been correctly propounded by phoneticians; since it is itself the phenomena from which those laws are deduced. This carelessness or ease of speech will vary naturally _in all degrees_ according to occasion, and being dependent on mood and temper will never go wrong. It is warm and alive with expression of character, and may pa.s.s quite unselfconsciously from the grace of negligence to the grace of correctness, for it has correctness at command, having learned it, and its carelessness has not been doctored and bandaged; and this ease of unselfconsciousness is one of the essentials of human intercourse: a man talking fluently does not consider what words he will use, he does not often remember exactly what words he has used, nor will he know at all how he p.r.o.nounces them; his speech flows from him as his blood flows when his flesh is wounded.

[Sidenote: What Mr. Jones would subst.i.tute.]

What would Mr. Jones' system subst.i.tute for this natural grace? In place of a wide scale of unconscious variation he provides his pupils with 'three styles', three different fixed grades of p.r.o.nunciation,[25] which they must apply consciously as suits the occasion. At dinner you might be called on to talk to a bishop across the table in your best style B, or to an archbishop even in your A1, when you were talking to your neighbours in your best C.--Nature would no doubt a.s.sert herself and secure a fair blend; but none the less, the three styles are plainly alternatives and to some extent mutually exclusive, whereas natural varieties are harmoniously interwoven and essentially one.

[Footnote 25: Of course Mr. Jones knows that these are not and cannot be fixed. He must often bewail in secret the exigencies of his 'styles'.]

Argumentative a.n.a.logies are commonly chosen because they are specious rather than just; but there is one here which I cannot forbear. If a system like Mr. Jones' were adopted in teaching children to write, we should begin by collecting and comparing all the careless and hasty handwritings of the middle cla.s.s and deduce from them the prevalent forms of the letters in that state of degradation. From this we should construct in our 'style B' the alphabet which we should contend to be the genuine natural product of inevitable law, and hallowed by 'general use', and this we should give to our children to copy and learn, relegating the more carefully formed writing to a 'style A, taught by writing masters', explaining that its 'peculiarities' were 'modifications produced involuntarily as the result of writing more slowly or endeavouring to write more distinctly', &c.[26]

[Footnote 26: _Phonetic Transcriptions of English_, by D. Jones, 1907, Introd., p. v, 'The peculiarities of Style A as compared with Style B are especially marked. These differences are partly natural, i.e.

modifications produced involuntarily as the result of speaking more slowly or of endeavouring to speak more distinctly, and partly artificial, i.e. modifications due to the well-established though perhaps somewhat arbitrary rules laid down by teachers of elocution,'

&c., and Mr. Jones is quite right in complaining that his pupils make fools of themselves when they try to speak slower.]

I believe that there has never been in Europe a fluent script so beautiful and legible as that of our very best English writers of to-day. But their aesthetic mastery has come from loving study of the forms that conscious artistry had perfected, and through a constant practice in their harmonious adaptation.

Finally, it may be worth while to raise the question how it can be that a man of Mr. Jones' extreme competence in his science should commit himself to a position that appears so false and mischievous.

[Sidenote: Reason of present discredit of phonetics.]

The unpopularity of phonetics is not wholly undeserved: from its early elements, the comfortably broad distinctions of convincing importance, it has progressed to a stage of almost infinite differentiations and subtleties; and when machinery was called in to dispose of controversy, a new and unsuspected ma.s.s of baffling detail was revealed.

The subject cannot be treated parenthetically, nor am I capable of summarizing it; but it seems clear that the complexity of the science has driven off public sympathy and dashed the confidence of scholars, withdrawing thereby some of the wholesome checks that common sense might else have imposed on its practical exponents. The experts thus left to themselves in despair of any satisfactory solution, are likely enough to adopt the simplifications most agreeable to their present ideas, and measure the utility of such simplifications by the accidental conveniences of their own science, independently of other considerations.

[Sidenote: The practical difficulty.]

The main practical difficulty which they have to meet in providing a reasonably satisfactory phonetic script or type for the English language is this, that the symbols of their alphabet must not greatly exceed in number those of the literary alphabet, whereas the sounds that they have to indicate do greatly exceed.

This discrepancy might be overcome by the use of what are called 'diacritical' marks, but here the universal prejudice against accents in English is forbidding, and it is true that even if printers did not rebel against them, they are yet distasteful and deterrent to readers out of all proportion to their complexity.

[Sidenote: The result of Mr. Jones' solution.]

[Sidenote: The true condition of modified vowels, &c.]

Mr. Jones no doubt allowed himself as much liberty as he could venture on, but to what has this paucity and choice of symbols led him? It has led him to a.s.sert and teach that an unaccented vowel in English retains no trace of its proper quality[27]: that is, that you cannot, or at least do not, modify an unaccented vowel; you either p.r.o.nounce _a_, _e_, _o_, _u_, distinctly, or you must subst.i.tute an alien sound, generally 'er', or in some consonantal positions a short 'i'. Thus we have _parersite_, _oblerquy_, _ikse'pt_, _ikspre'ss_, _iqua'ter_, _peri'sherner_, _perli'ce_, _spe'sherlize_, _pin'erkl_, _Mes'esperta'mier_, &c., and one of his examples, which he advances with the confidence of complete satisfaction, is the name _Margate_, which he a.s.serts is p.r.o.nounced _Margit_,[28] that is, with a short _i_. The vowel is no doubt short, and its shortness is enforced by its being closed by a _t_: but it is not a short _i_, it is an extremely hastened and therefore disguised form of the original and proper diphthong _ei_ (heard in _bait_ and _gate_); and the true way to write it phonetically would be _ei_, with some diacritical sign to show that it was obscured. There is no long vowel or diphthong in English which cannot in some positions be p.r.o.nounced short; and when hurried over between accents it is easy to see that there is nothing, except an obstacle of consonants, which can prevent the shortening of any syllable; for long and short are relative, and when you are speaking very slowly 'short' sounds actually occupy as much time as 'long'

sounds do when you are speaking quickly. You have therefore only to suppose a speed of utterance somewhat out of scale; and this is just what happens. In the second syllable of _Margate_ the diphthong is hastened and obscured, but a trace of its quality remains, and will more distinctly appear as you speak the word slower. And so in the case of unaccented short vowels that are hurried over between the accents in talking, they are disguised and lose quality, but in good speakers a trace of the original sound will remain (as in _parasite_ and _obloquy_), where, on the ground of indistinctness, Mr. Jones introduces the symbol of an _alien unrelated_ sound, a sound, that is, which is _distinctly wrong instead of being indistinctly right_: and this fault vitiates all his books. Economy of symbols has led him to perversity of p.r.o.nunciation.[29]

[Footnote 27: I do not deny that he allows some exceptions: and these, few as they are, concede the principle for which I contend.]

[Footnote 28: His own words are, 'Thus Margate trippers now generally speak of Ma:geit instead of Ma:git: teachers in London elementary schools now often say eksept for iksept 'except', ekstr[e][o]:din[er]ri for ikstr[o]dnri 'extraordinary', often for [o]:fn 'often'. We feel that such artificialities cannot but impair the beauty of the language.' Dictionary, 1st edition, Preface, p.v.]

[Footnote 29: In the first edition of the Dictionary [1913] [e] has only one interpretation, the ill.u.s.tration being the _a_ of _about_.

In the _Phonetic Transcriptions_ [1907] it was the _er_ of _over_, but in the new Dictionary [1917] [e] has three interpretations with the following explanation: '[e] varies noticeably according to its position in the word and in the sentence. In final positions it is often replaced (_sic_) by "[Greek: L]" [=_u_ of _up_], in other positions its quality varies considerably according to the nature of the surrounding sounds; the variations extend from almost "[Greek: L]" to the half-close mixed position. Three different values may be heard in the words _china_, _cathedral_: in the latter word the second "[e]" has a lower and more retracted tongue-position than the first [e].'

The value of [e] when Mr. Jones first subst.i.tuted it for a disguised unaccented vowel, was that the speaker might know what sound he had to produce. It was wrong, but it was definite. Mr. Jones would now make it less wrong by making it less definite. That is, in the place of something distinctly wrong we are offered something which has an offchance of being nearly right: but as it has entirely ousted and supplanted the original vowel I do not see how there is any means of interpreting it correctly. The _er_ of _over_ is a definite sound, and to print it where it was out of place was a definite error--to give it three interpretations makes it cover more ground: but its usurpations are still indefensible.]

7. _ON THE CLAIM THAT SOUTHERN ENGLISH HAS TO REPRESENT ALL BRITISH SPEECH._

On this head certainly I can write nothing worth reading. Whether there is any one with so wide a knowledge of all the main different forms of English now spoken, their historic development and chief characteristics, as to be able to summarize the situation convincingly, I do not know. I can only put a few of the most evident phenomena in the relation in which they happen to affect my judgement.

And first of all I put the small local holding which the Southern English dialect can claim on the map of the British Empire. It is plain that with such a narrow habitat it must show proof that it possesses very great relative superiorities before it can expect to be allowed even a hearing: and such a claim must lie in its superiority in some practical or ideal quality: further than that it might allege that it was the legitimate heir of our great literature, and in possession of the citadel, and in command of an extensive machinery for its propaganda.

Now, in my opinion it could not establish any one of these claims except the last, namely its central position and wide machinery.

I do not pretend to foresee the future, nor even to desire it in any particular form; but it seems to me probable that if the 'P.S.P.'

continues its downward course as indicated by Mr. Jones, then, unless everything else worsens with it, so that it might maintain its relative flotation in a general confusion, it must fall to be disesteemed and repudiated, and give place to one or more other dialects which, by having better preserved the distinctions of p.r.o.nunciation, will be not only more convenient vehicles of intercourse, but more truthful and intelligible interpreters of our great literature; and I believe this to be well ill.u.s.trated by the conditions of our 'S.E.' h.o.m.ophones: and that something better should win the first place, I hold to be the most desirable of possible events. But perhaps our 'S.E.' is not yet so far committed to the process of decay as to be incapable of reform, and the machinery that we use for penetration may be used as well for organizing a reform and for enforcing it. There is as much fashion as inevitable law in our 'P.S.P.' or 'S.E.' talk, and if the fashion for a better, that is a more distinct and conservative, p.r.o.nunciation should set in, then at the cost of a little temporary self-consciousness we might, in one generation, or at least in two, have things again very much as they were in Shakespeare's day. It is true that men are slaves to the naturalness of what is usual with them, and unable to imagine that the actual living condition of things in their own time is evanescent: nor do even students and scholars see that in the Elizabethan literature we have a perdurable gigantic picture which, among all stages of change, will persistently rea.s.sert itself, while any special characteristics of our own day, which seem so unalterable to us, are only a movement, which may no doubt be determining the next movement, but will leave no other trace of itself, at least no more than the peculiarities of the age of Queen Anne have left to us.

I have been told that the German experts believe that the c.o.c.kney form of English will eventually prevail. This surprising opinion may rest on scientific grounds, but it seems to me that c.o.c.kney speech will be too universally unintelligible; and, should it actively develop, will be so out of relation with other and older forms of English as to be unable to compete.

I wish and hope that the subject of this section may provoke some expert to deal thoroughly with it. The strong feeling in America, in Australia, and in New Zealand, to say nothing of the proud dialects of our own islands, is in support of the common-sense view of the matter which I have here expressed.

SUMMARY

When I consented to write this inaugural paper, I knew that my first duty would be to set an example of the att.i.tude which the Society had proposed to take and hopes to maintain.

This Society was called into existence by the widespread interest in linguistic subjects which is growing on the public, and by the lamentable lack of any organized means for focussing opinion. It responds to that interest, and would supply that want.[30] There is no doubt that public opinion is altogether at sea in these matters, and its futility is betrayed and encouraged by the amateurish discussions and _obiter dicta_ that are constantly appearing and reappearing in the newspapers. Our belief is that if facts and principles were clearly stated and thoroughly handled by experts, it would then be possible not only to utilize this impulse and gratify a wholesome appet.i.te, but even to attract and organize a consensus of sound opinion which might influence and determine the practice of our best writers and speakers.

[Footnote 30: Neither the British Academy nor the Academic Committee of the Royal Society of Literature has shown any tendency to recognize their duties and responsibilities in this department.]

The Society absolutely repudiates the a.s.sumption of any sort of Academic authority or orthodoxy; it relies merely on statement of fact and free expression of educated opinion to a.s.sure the verdict of common sense; and it may ill.u.s.trate this method to recapitulate the various special questions that have arisen from following it in this particular discussion concerning English h.o.m.ophones.

The main points are of course

(1) The actual condition of the English language with respect to h.o.m.ophones. [This is an example of statement of fact.]

(2) The serious nature of their inconvenience.

(3) The evidence that we are unconsciously increasing them.

(4) The consequent impoverishment of the language.