Untitled

New Zealand Listener, Volume 17, Issue 425, 15 August 1947, Page 5

Sir,-TI. should like to congratulate Mr. Fairburn on his study of New Zealand speech, and add some notes from my experience. I think the basic trouble is that New Zealanders do not appreciate the practical value of good speech and its aesthetics, that indeed they have a distinct prejudice against it, an inverted snobbishness, The late Colonel Arthur Bauchop, who fell at Gallipoli, a soldier with a cultivated mind, told me of the following incident. He was

in England with a special contingent, ‘and he and other colonial officers were guests of officers of the Guards at Lord’s. Bauchop was so pleased with the agreeable convetsational speéch of his hosts among themselves, that he asked one of his fellow guests to listen. This was a man from New South Wales, rather a rough diamond, who was to rise to general’s rank in the first world ‘war. X listened for a few moménts to the guardsmen talking, and then said: "That! I call that bloody side!" No doubt the guardsmen said "he-ah" for "here," but probably Bauchop, as I do, preferred that to the thin nasal "heeer" (the "r" hardly sounded) that is so common in New Zealand. Too many New Zealanders tend to think that agreeable speech is affectation. I have known schoolboys who have two. styles of speaking-one for company and one for their mates. Our pronunciation of words is less at. fault than our general tone of voice and our sensé of rhythm, which is rudimentary. In my 11 years in broadcasting I had to afrange many talks by distinguished men from Britain, representing all parties and classes, I don’t think there was a really poor speaker among them. They all had a sense of rhythm. I attribute this to tradition and educa-

tion and to the practice of speaking in company where the standard is high; also, and this arises from the foregoing, to a social poise. They were sure of themselves, at their ease.

ALAN

MULGAN

(Wellington).