A Recognisable Norm

New Zealand Listener, Volume 17, Issue 419, 4 July 1947, Page 12

A Recognisable Norm

Se The last of a series of four articles written for "The

9> Listen er by

A. R. D.

FAIRBURN

HE Maori language, if I am not mistaken, is practically devoid of diphthong sounds. The vowel sounds are kept apart from one another, when they occur together they are given separate end distinct expression. Maori is a musical language, but it lacks the subtlety and complexity of English. And this greater richness is due in no small measure to the numerous diphthong sounds that are used. When ~ some person, out ‘of sheer gentility, turns the diphthong in the word "day" into a pure vowel ("deh"), or does the same thing to "fire" by pronouncing it "fah", he is helping to impoverish the English language. There are people who dispense altogether with the beautiful i diphthong’ in such words as "fine." Some of them make it "foine," others "fane.’ They, too, are wiping a very good colour off their palette, or their palate. For similar reasons, the a in "far" should be given its full value, and should not be pinched in to approximate to the short a in "fat." On the other hand, it should not, become "faw." "Aw," "ah" and "a" (short) are three good and, distinct vowel sounds. They should not be substituted for one an- other, nor pushed in close together in the range of sound, It would be tedious if I were to go through all the vowel sounds and their variations and indicate the distinctions. But in case any reader suffers from insomnia, and wants something to occupy his mind, let me offer a very simple and unorthodox system of vowelphonetics that may help him to analyse the various diphthong sounds that are so often mispronounced. Common Errors Why is it that they are so often misused? Partly because the vowels of which they are compounded are not produced properly in the throat. But mainly because the wrong combinations of vowel sounds are so often used in spoken diphthongs. Take the word "fine" by way of example, The ij stands for a diphthong sound-the combination of the two vowels AH and EE. Say FAH-EEN quickly, running the two vowel sounds together, and you have FINE. If the two sounds are given efficient voice production, the pronun‘ciation of the word will be according to correct standard English. If you go in the other direction, and make’ AW and . EE ‘your vowel sounds, you will get FOINE.

Take, again, the word BROWN. The correct diphthong is roughly AH-OO. But if you make the first part of it a short A, as in "cat,’ you will get the common New Zéaland pronunciation, The really bad New Zealand pronunciation is a combination of three vowel sounds-BREE-A-OON (short A). Say it quickly, and you will see what I mean. / If you will go over the diphthong sounds in various words, breaking them up in this way, the importance of combining the right vowel sounds will soon become apparent; and you will be able to pick holes in the speech of almost anybody who talks to you. Some diphthongs are, of course, nearly fool-proof, and are almost impossible to mishandle. For instance, the w in WATER, which is really OO. Say OO-AW-TER quickly and. you will be close to the mark. A similar example can be found in y, YOUNG and YELLOW can be broken up into EE-UNG and EE-ELLOW. (When y appears in the middle of a word it is nearly always the equivalent of i long or short.) Standard ,English requires, then, first that there should be good voice-produc-tion-the full use of all the organs of speech; secondly, that the vowels should be fairly diverse, quite distinct, and evenly spaced from one another in the "sound spectrum"; and thirdly, that the diphthongs should consist of the right combinations of vowels. It requires many other things, of course-a good vocabulary, correct word-pronunciation, rhythm, proper emphasis, and so on, But those things open up other fields of enquiry. ; Those who heard Leslie Banks speak the Prologue to Henry V will know what good English speech sounds like, (In ordinary speech there is not as a rule the neéd for such a powerfully expressive mode of utterance.) G, B. Shaw’s speech is admirable; and among broadcasters Wickham Steed is outstanding. These men all speak differently, for they are different persons. But the speech of all three approximates to standard English, and stands up to phonetic tests. ; The speech of most public men in New Zealand, on the other hand, is deplorable. The intonation is often raucous, Sa Spee ee ee |

or whining. The formation of the consonants often conveys the suggestion of crippled lips or of a tongue that has got itself jammed in under a loose denture. But I must not say too much, People ere usually just as sensitive about their voices as they are about their faces. And often as not a heart of gold goes —

with a voice that ought to find a use as an offensive weapon in commando warfare. I know I shall be rebuked if, having "touched lightly on certain deficiencies in New Zealanders’ habits of speech, I do not try to provide a remedy. I feel that the teachers are really the only hore who can do much about it. The raining Colleges should make a serious attempt to establish a norm of speech. There is no need to go to extremes, and produce sky-blue imitation-English voices that move the children to boisterous laughter. There is one suggestion I would offer. I am convinced that in the process of learning to speak well, a great deal depends on rhythm and emphasis. The sing-song verse-speaking most of us were taught at school years ago is the worst possible training. The chanting of multiplication tables we used to do was thoroughly destructive of the sense . of rhythm. Most New Zealanders speak with too little emphasis, too little light and shade. (Sometimes, when they come to give radio talks, and feel the need for using a touch of emphasis here and there, they often put it in ludicrously wrong places.) Here, I think, we have the chief reason for the emphasis of the suffix -ly-‘quicklee," "nicelee." Any who had been trained in infancy in the proper use of rhythm and emphasis would naturally place the stress on "quick" and make the second syllable g very light one. Good English speech’ is neither hangdog, nor affected and "prissy"; nor ostentatiously "cultured"; nor pedantically "correct." I contend that there is something that can be called "standard English," and that it is a recognisable norm, which is "objective" in that it conforms to certain phonetic requirements, and is based fundamentally on aesthetic and not social conventions. Bikes . ‘The case for the defence rests. a J